Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

  • 610 Replies
  • 58483 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline tkadm30

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1038
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.

Wrong. Geoengineering IS happening right now. You have to be plain silly to ignore this fact. Again, on what planet do you live? Is it the same planet where unicorns live? Geoengineering is a real world attempt to reduce global CO2 levels by injecting sulfate aerosols in the troposphere and so far it's not working out.
The bliss of ignorance is deeper in the region of tyranny.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.

Wrong. Geoengineering IS happening right now. You have to be plain silly to ignore this fact. Again, on what planet do you live? Is it the same planet where unicorns live? Geoengineering is a real world attempt to reduce global CO2 levels by injecting sulfate aerosols in the troposphere and so far it's not working out.

You will need to do rather better than "proof by loud assertion".
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 155
    • View Profile
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

I say again habitat destruction and spieces lost is a bigger issue then global warming

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.

Wrong. Geoengineering IS happening right now. You have to be plain silly to ignore this fact. Again, on what planet do you live? Is it the same planet where unicorns live? Geoengineering is a real world attempt to reduce global CO2 levels by injecting sulfate aerosols in the troposphere and so far it's not working out.
You have been making these wild assertions for some time now.
Have you noticed that this is a science forum? Assertions, if they are to be given serious consideration, must be supported by evidence, or reasoned argument. So far you have provided neither.

As Bored Chemist says, simply repeating the same mantra over and over, means nothing.

And to answer your question: I live on a planet where well educated, thoughtful people prefer facts over fantasy, evidence over emotion, and rationality over rants. Perhaps you would like to join us.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
Without the context of the next sentence which says " Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline tkadm30

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1038
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
You have been making these wild assertions for some time now.
Have you noticed that this is a science forum? Assertions, if they are to be given serious consideration, must be supported by evidence, or reasoned argument. So far you have provided neither.

As Bored Chemist says, simply repeating the same mantra over and over, means nothing.

And to answer your question: I live on a planet where well educated, thoughtful people prefer facts over fantasy, evidence over emotion, and rationality over rants. Perhaps you would like to join us.


The notion that solar geoengineering is happening currently isn't an assertion, it is a *fact*. You have to be foolish to deny the evidences that we're attempting to cool the planet by injecting (sulfate) aerosols in the troposphere.   

BTW, where I live people are not all well educated and many of us do prefers fantasies such as climate change over facts. If you prefer living in a state of collective schizophrenia then I can understand your difficulties to learn why geoengineering is a fundamental aspect of climate change.   
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 11:25:41 by tkadm30 »
The bliss of ignorance is deeper in the region of tyranny.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
The notion that solar geoengineering is happening currently isn't an assertion, it is a *fact*. You have to be foolish to deny the evidences that we're attempting to cool the planet by injecting (sulfate) aerosols in the troposphere.   
I cannot deny the evidence, because so far you have failed to provide any evidence. Go ahead. Present it now.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
Without the context of the next sentence which says " Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.

So you would have it that whilst we cannot predict the future climate we should use models to predict the future climate. By using models and seeing where the distribution of these models falls. Or reading the teabags.....

Company indeed.

Using the results of models you have no confidence in because you agree that we cannot predict the future climate to give more complex results so they look better is definately misleading.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 20:20:58 by Tim the Plumber »

*

Offline tkadm30

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1038
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
The notion that solar geoengineering is happening currently isn't an assertion, it is a *fact*. You have to be foolish to deny the evidences that we're attempting to cool the planet by injecting (sulfate) aerosols in the troposphere.   
I cannot deny the evidence, because so far you have failed to provide any evidence. Go ahead. Present it now.

The elevated concentrations of dissolved aluminium in the Gomati River Basin water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb:

Quote
Aluminium (Al), an environmentally abundant and immobile element, has been studied for its mobility in the Gomati River Basin, a part of the Ganga Alluvial Plain, northern India. The dissolved Al concentrations in the Gomati River water and the Lucknow ground-water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb. In the Gomati River water, Al is classified as a moderately mobile element. Nearly 19% of Lucknow groundwater samples and all the Gomati River water samples have Al values above
the permissible limit (200ppb) recommended by the World Health
Organization. Systematic multi-disciplinary study is urgently required to understand the geological association of high Al mobility with human health in the  Ganga Alluvial Plain, one of the densely populated regions of the world.

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/03/0434.pdf

One may ask from where did this aluminium concentration originates? Aluminium oxide simply don't naturally exist in the atmosphere. This is an evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity may increase this aluminium concentration in rainwater by dumping coal fly ash leachates in the troposphere.

For further references see: http://nuclearplanet.com/2173.pdf
The bliss of ignorance is deeper in the region of tyranny.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” But

Quote
Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

has the concatenation of five weasel words in one sentence. In comparison, even George Osborne looks like an honest man. The nearest translation I can think of is "We have no idea what we are doing. It certainly isn't science, but please pay us to keep on guessing, and eventually the monkeys will type  something that looks like a sonnet, if not the complete works of Shakespeare."

Ipsi dixint.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 16:09:12 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
The elevated concentrations of dissolved aluminium in the Gomati River Basin water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb:

Quote
Aluminium (Al), an environmentally abundant and immobile element, has been studied for its mobility in the Gomati River Basin, a part of the Ganga Alluvial Plain, northern India. The dissolved Al concentrations in the Gomati River water and the Lucknow ground-water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb. In the Gomati River water, Al is classified as a moderately mobile element. Nearly 19% of Lucknow groundwater samples and all the Gomati River water samples have Al values above
the permissible limit (200ppb) recommended by the World Health
Organization. Systematic multi-disciplinary study is urgently required to understand the geological association of high Al mobility with human health in the  Ganga Alluvial Plain, one of the densely populated regions of the world.

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/03/0434.pdf

One may ask from where did this aluminium concentration originates? Aluminium oxide simply don't naturally exist in the atmosphere. This is an evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity may increase this aluminium concentration in rainwater by dumping coal fly ash leachates in the troposphere.
1. Finally, some evidence. It just happens to be very poor evidence: sound research whose significance has been entirely misinterpreted by you.

2. One completely agrees that Aluminium oxide does not exist in the atmosphere, but this is a strawman. The aluminium is found in the waters of a river, not the atmosphere. I know of no case - and challenge you to offer one - where the aluminium in river water was not derived from either erosion of rocks (the majority source), or occasionally from industrial pollution (from solid waste).

3. Thus, you have made no connection between alleged dispersal of atmospheric aluminium and its presence in these river waters.

4. You have failed to explain why this global dispersal of aluminium should show up only in this river. Your own reference notes that the normal concentration is less than 100 ppb. So how come this river shows the anomaly?

5. The authors of the research you cite as evidence for your hypothesis even explain the source: "Aluminium  is  predominantly  transported  in  water  of the  Gomati  River  Basin  by  the  weathering  processes  of the  alluvial  sediments  (parent  material).  On  release  from mineral,  Al  chemistry  controls  its mobility.  Dissolved  Al shows  high  significant  correlation  coefficient  (r2=0.99) with  dissolved  Fe  in  the  Gomati  River  water.  This  indicates  a  common  source  present in the alluvial  sediments. Dissolution and weathering of biotite is important to provide  Al  and  other  trace  elements  in  the  Gomati  River water. Some  contributions  from muscovite and  feldspar are also considered important."

Please provide something more substantive in the way of evidence, or address all of the points by which I have refuted this attempt.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” But

Quote
Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

has the concatenation of five weasel words in one sentence.

Which do you consider to be weasel words?
Incidentally what is says is something more like the equivalent of- "We don't know whether there will be a white Christmas in London next year, but we can at least model whether that's more likely than one in Sydney."

You seem to prefer the option of not even knowing which city to avoid if you don't want a snowy December.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/03/0434.pdf

One may ask from where did this aluminium concentration originates? .
One might well ask that.
And the answer is that the research paper simply isn't valid. If I had been on the peer review board I'd have kicked it out.

Interestingly the paper, which can be found here
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271207655_High_mobility_of_aluminium_in_Gomati_River_Basin_Implications_to_human_health
contains the seeds of its own destruction.
In figure 4 they include a diagram showing the solubility of aluminium in water as a function of pH.
They also indicate that the typical pH of the water samples they took was about 8 and from the diagram it's clear that the solubility of aluminium at that pH is quite low.
It's about 1 to 10 µmoles per litre- call it 10.
A mole of aluminium is about 27 grams
That's about 270 µgrams per litre.

Think about it; their own paper says that you simply can't dissolve more than about 270 µgrams of aluminium per litre in their river water samples.
water.
And they quote results saying they found 78000 ppb
that's 78ppm
or 78 µg/ml or
78000 µgrams per litre.

OK, so it's very clear that there's a mistake.
They say you can't dissolve more than 270µg/litre and yet they found almost a thousand times as much.
OK, so it's time to have a look and see what their mistake was.

Well, they say in the method that they took samples of water, added a little nitric acid and then transported them to the lab for analysis.
Then they filtered the samples and analysed the filtrate.

It's fairly common practice to add acid to water samples- it stops microbes growing and it prevents the loss of mercury by evaporation..
Unfortunately, it also leaches aluminium from clay/ soil particles in the water.
So, when you filter off the liquid it contains, not only the "free" aluminium that was present in the first place- but also some leached out of the mud.

And if you report that you are misleading yourself.
That paper should never have been published; it's obviously wrong.

So, not only is it irrelevant (as Ophiolite pointed out) it's not even right.
So, once again, do you have any evidence?


« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 17:47:18 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Which do you consider to be weasel words?
The ones I highlighted in color.
Quote
Incidentally what is says is something more like the equivalent of- "We don't know whether there will be a white Christmas in London next year, but we can at least model whether that's more likely than one in Sydney."
It isn't nearly that specific. It says we hope to develop an ensemble of models that might just tell us the probability distribution of the possibility that Sydney is not London.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 155
    • View Profile
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"


Wellll

Without the context of the next sentence which says


Next sentence? This sentence below

" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote

"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"


That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.

Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?

Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.

However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?

 Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.

It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"

I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.
« Last Edit: 25/04/2016 05:19:27 by Jolly »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"


Wellll

Without the context of the next sentence which says


Next sentence? This sentence below

" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote

"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"


That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.

Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?

Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.

However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?

 Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.

It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"

I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.

I take it that you realise you completely missed the point.
He quotes part of this report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

But he quotes a cherry picked part of it
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

out of the context which says

 "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "

The next sentence obviously isn't void at all.
But, if it were then a bright guy like him would have pointed that out.

What you don't seem to understand is that most of life is based on predictions that are not exact- but they are still helpful.
or. more likely, you  do understand it,but you are pretending that it doesn't apply here in order to try and bolster your position.
Nice try.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Which do you consider to be weasel words?
The ones I highlighted in color.
Quote
Incidentally what is says is something more like the equivalent of- "We don't know whether there will be a white Christmas in London next year, but we can at least model whether that's more likely than one in Sydney."
It isn't nearly that specific. It says we hope to develop an ensemble of models that might just tell us the probability distribution of the possibility that Sydney is not London.

I saw that you highlighted some words.
It's not clear why you think that they are weasel words.
"prediction" is more or less the opposite of a weasel word. You say what you think will happen and if youare wrong it's damned obvious that you were.
"probability distribution"
Is phrase, rather than a word, and the meaning is perfectly clear, albeit a bit technical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

And so on.
.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 155
    • View Profile
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"


Wellll

Without the context of the next sentence which says


Next sentence? This sentence below

" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote

"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"


That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.

Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?

Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.

However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?

 Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.

It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"

I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.

I take it that you realise you completely missed the point.
He quotes part of this report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

But he quotes a cherry picked part of it
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

out of the context which says

 "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "

The next sentence obviously isn't void at all.
But, if it were then a bright guy like him would have pointed that out.

He doesnt have to. if it's currently not possible to make models that will acuratly predict the future climate- then it's not possible. 


What you don't seem to understand is that most of life is based on predictions that are not exact- but they are still helpful.
or. more likely, you  do understand it,but you are pretending that it doesn't apply here in order to try and bolster your position.
Nice try.



Life is not based on predictions :) Scientific life might be tho.

My position is the same that Climate change is not as important an issue, as habitat destruction.

But what exactly doesn't apply? If you know models cant accuratly predict the future climate, they can only really be helpful to people with an agenda ultimatly, either to prove or disprove warming, and models depending on their design can show either. Can bias be taken out of the models contruction? Hard to say when the those making the models often have their motivation for building them. IPCC suggests creating many more and many new models, and then using all the stats they generate, to gain a prediction- it's still a best guess of guesses, that "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" states will not work, as a true predictor, as that's just not possible(maybe that will change, but currently we do not understand all the different factors involved in climate).

So he has not been misleading, by not mentioning the rest of the sentence.     



 

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Do we even actually know what the original speaker meant by "long-term"? Did he mean a decade? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? These are very different lengths of time that could under various circumstances be considered "long-term". There are currently some random events that can't be predicted at all. For example, changes in the energy received from the sun (there is a roughly 11 year cycle but exact magnitudes are hard to predict), volcanic activity (which can warm or cool depending the ratio of aerosols to CO2 they emit), and things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (which in theory is predictable but not at the moment). All of these random events feed into the nonlinear chaotic climate system of the Earth causing potentially major effects. However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.



Proving that at least over at least 5 years when you have a good guess about the random conditions that are likely the models work exceedingly well. Even ignoring the almost unpredictable climatic drivers the non-linearity of the system causes small early differences to become much larger over time. However, that increase in uncertainty is never enough to reverse the trend of increasing average global temperature (without CO2 reductions).

Increasing mean global temperature (and it is clearly increasing) will shift weather patterns in some way (even if you disagree with how you cannot disagree that weather patterns must change), change where crops can and cannot be grown, increase overall sea level, and significantly alter animal habitats (being human centered for a moment the worst part of this is the increased range of disease carrying pest insects). These impacts will take some time to manifest and will persist simply due to the fact large systems such as the climate are relatively slow to respond to changes (relatively being the key word). None of these changes is likely to be beneficial to human society and are likely to be fairly harmful. Transitioning away from CO2 emissions is unlikely to have significantly long lasting economic impacts on the entire economy (we might even get some benefits but some of the people that are currently making a lot of money probably won't be making as much). If there is even a slight chance that dropping CO2 emissions could help mitigate the coming changes we should do it. This is often called the precautionary principle.

Even ignoring the CO2 argument transitioning to renewables still has massive benefits. A good deal of political instability in the world is tied to oil rights. This will only get worse as oil reserves dwindle and global energy demand skyrockets. A lot of other clearly harmful pollution comes from burning fossil fuels (smog just to name one). In addition to moving away from fossil fuels industrial farming of meat (cows for example) results in a lot of other pretty bad pollutants that have nothing to do with greenhouse gasses in addition to using a lot of land and water less than efficiently. Again this is going to lead to increasing political strife over water and land rights as population and demand grow. So even if we ignore the specter of climate change we should still be transitioning away from basically all forms of industrial scale human CO2 emissions as much as possible if for no other reason than to ensure future political stability and resource sustainability which again is good for the long term health of the global economy and human civilization in general.

To repeat, even ignoring climate change basically every industrial scale human based source of CO2 is linked in someway to eventual global instability that has nothing to do with any climate changes and thus even ignoring climate change we should still start taking action now instead of waiting until it is too late. I don't think anyone was ever sorry that they started preparing for a potential emergency too early. Pretty much the worst that can happen (assuming no one does anything completely idiotic) is that some people are financially worse off than they otherwise would have been which is not a compelling reason to risk the future stability of human civilization.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.
What I find interesting about these curves is that both the predicted and actual effects of s single eruption (admittedly quite a big one) of a load of particulates were larger than the underlying annual trend, whatever the cause of that.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.
What I find interesting about these curves is that both the predicted and actual effects of s single eruption (admittedly quite a big one) of a load of particulates were larger than the underlying annual trend, whatever the cause of that.   

Even "quite a big one" isn't really an accurate description of Pinatubo. It was a 6 on the VEI scale placing it just two below the largest eruptions known and it ejected an estimated 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2. Worse much of it was basically shot straight into the stratosphere unlike human emissions which take some time to reach those heights (and it isn't a guarantee they ever will). The biggest issues with powerful eruptions is that they send a good deal of material much higher than human activity into a region of the atmosphere where the impacts and chemistry are different.

*

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 155
    • View Profile

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q
Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

Thanks for that.
I presume you were unable to actually address the issue I raised.


What you are saying, in effect, is that because we can not tell exactly what the weather will be like tomorrow, we shouldn't have a weather forecast.
Not only that but we shouldn't have a backup plan in case the weather isn't what  we hoped.

How do you get on in life if that's how you actually live?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
it ejected an estimated 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2.
That's less than one sixth of the annual anthropogenic emission of SO2, which has been going on for hundreds of years, mostly from the combustion of coal.

What really distinguishes volcanic eruptions from anthropogenic gases is the stratospheric distribution of ash particles rather than gases. It's the gross reflection of the subsequent clouds (cloud cover being increased by dust nucleation of supercooled water) that controls surface temperature.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 155
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.




Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q
Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

Thanks for that.
I presume you were unable to actually address the issue I raised.


Well the issue was if "life" needs plans or is based on predictions. Mice make plans, Amebas also clearly, So I think Eddies little skit was a nice reponse.

 

 

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
That's less than one sixth of the annual anthropogenic emission of SO2, which has been going on for hundreds of years, mostly from the combustion of coal.

You should know better than that. Absolute amounts are way less important than rates. It may have been 1/6 the annual amount but it also happened in less than 1/30 the time which means conservatively the rate was roughly 5 times higher. In particular SO2 (and sulfur compounds in general) have a residence time of about a day and at the most 2 days (at least in the lower troposphere where most of the human SO2 ends up but more on this later). This means the only comparison that has a chance of mattering is the amount humans put into the air in one day vs the amount the eruption put into the air in one day. Human emissions amount to about 330 tonnes a day while on average over the approximately 12 days of eruption Pinatubo managed closer to 1,700 tonnes per day. However this still isn't quite fair because the human emissions don't end up in the same place as the eruption emissions.

What really distinguishes volcanic eruptions from anthropogenic gases is the stratospheric distribution of ash particles rather than gases. It's the gross reflection of the subsequent clouds (cloud cover being increased by dust nucleation of supercooled water) that controls surface temperature.

It is actually well understood the SO2 is very important because it rapidly forms particulates when in the atmosphere which is part of the reason SO2 doesn't stay in the troposphere for much longer than a day. The SO2 from the eruption did what SO2 does and formed a haze of sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere. These droplets were easily the biggest factor in the decrease in solar radiation reaching the ground. The fact that the droplets formed in the stratosphere rather than the troposphere means they stuck around for much longer because they couldn't be washed out by rainstorms.

So while you were right to identify the region of the atmosphere as being important and scattering from clouds you were wrong that SO2 wasn't the most important cooling agent. It has actually been known for awhile from observation that the amount of sulfur containing gasses emitted during a volcanic eruption is a better indicator of the amount of cooling to expect than the amount of ash and dust emitted. Instead of water condensed around dust particles what is actually important is sulfuric acid clouds from the SO2.

In short, your comparison is meaningless because the rates were very different (and rates are more important than amounts in this case) and the two types of emissions end up in very different parts of the atmosphere which have very different residence times. (That is not to say some human emitted SO2 doesn't make it into the stratosphere just that most of it doesn't and certainly not as large a percentage as from an eruption.)

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
In particular SO2 (and sulfur compounds in general) have a residence time of about a day and at the most 2 days

If we allow a halflife of 2 days, 10 days after the eruption there will be less than 1/1000 of the initial concentration, and less than one billionth after a month. You wouldn't expect to see an effect over 5 years, surely? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
If we allow a halflife of 2 days, 10 days after the eruption there will be less than 1/1000 of the initial concentration, and less than one billionth after a month. You wouldn't expect to see an effect over 5 years, surely? 

Please take the time to read my posts carefully and in their entirety. For example:

However this still isn't quite fair because the human emissions don't end up in the same place as the eruption emissions.

and

It is actually well understood the SO2 is very important because it rapidly forms particulates when in the atmosphere which is part of the reason SO2 doesn't stay in the troposphere for much longer than a day. The SO2 from the eruption did what SO2 does and formed a haze of sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere. These droplets were easily the biggest factor in the decrease in solar radiation reaching the ground. The fact that the droplets formed in the stratosphere rather than the troposphere means they stuck around for much longer because they couldn't be washed out by rainstorms.

the two types of emissions end up in very different parts of the atmosphere which have very different residence times. (That is not to say some human emitted SO2 doesn't make it into the stratosphere just that most of it doesn't and certainly not as large a percentage as from an eruption.)

Honestly I estimate about a third of the post you pulled that quote from was dedicated directly to preemptively addressing that very concern because I knew it would come up. I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer about it.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.
Explain how this is not unparliametary:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2016 19:54:52 "You are a twit, aren't you?"

Shove your temporary ban up your ass, flat earth moron. I'M banning this site permanently after this post. You people have zero integrity. I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow braindead halfwits to be moderators, but have fun with your little gang of scientifically ignorant, politically biased corporate shills while spreading misinformation.

I've got news for you, blockhead. The laws of physics work the way they work no matter what words I choose. I shouldn't be kicked out of a science forum for unparliamentary language. You should all be kicked out for unscientific language and skeptical nonsense.

Combustion produces heat, and it produces carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere trap that heat.

Those are the facts, alan. Now, go fu ck yourself, parliamentarily or otherwise. I'm way too smart for you and your cronies. Banning me is the ONLY power you will EVER have over me, so enjoy it.

« Last Edit: 28/04/2016 14:37:02 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.
Explain how this is not unparliametary:

Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2016 19:54:52 "You are a twit, aren't you?"

Shove your temporary ban up your ass, flat earth moron. I'M banning this site permanently after this post. You people have zero integrity. I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow braindead halfwits to be moderators, but have fun with your little gang of scientifically ignorant, politically biased corporate shills while spreading misinformation.

I've got news for you, blockhead. The laws of physics work the way they work no matter what words I choose. I shouldn't be kicked out of a science forum for unparliamentary language. You should all be kicked out for unscientific language and skeptical nonsense.

Combustion produces heat, and it produces carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere trap that heat.

Those are the facts, alan. Now, go fu ck yourself, parliamentarily or otherwise. I'm way too smart for you and your cronies. Banning me is the ONLY power you will EVER have over me, so enjoy it.


You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.
You were thrown off after making threats of physical violence.

I don't think you will find many sites where that's acceptable.
« Last Edit: 28/04/2016 19:37:41 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?


I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?


I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Another none answer.

YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?

That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?


I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Another none answer.

YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?

That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.

If I ask you what the population of America is, I don't expect you to count them, I expect you to find an answer that someone else has counted.
So, if you said " about 320 million" and I asked how you knew that you would say you checked Google.
By your reckoning that's not answering the question.

There's even a web site dedicated to people who ask dumb questions where the answer is better obtained elsewhere

http://bfy.tw/5Xkt

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.


However, you seem to have grasped that and decided to ask a marginally more sensible question
"YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?"

Well, because that's what the people who know about it say and also
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile

Life is not based on predictions
 
Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?

Any chance of you answering mine?

What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?


I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.

It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot  more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Another none answer.

YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?

That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.

If I ask you what the population of America is, I don't expect you to count them, I expect you to find an answer that someone else has counted.
So, if you said " about 320 million" and I asked how you knew that you would say you checked Google.
By your reckoning that's not answering the question.

There's even a web site dedicated to people who ask dumb questions where the answer is better obtained elsewhere

http://bfy.tw/5Xkt

So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.


However, you seem to have grasped that and decided to ask a marginally more sensible question
"YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.

I am asking YOU why?"

Well, because that's what the people who know about it say and also

Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile




Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.


"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.
You were thrown off after making threats of physical violence.

I don't think you will find many sites where that's acceptable.
I don't care. You spent weeks trolling me, insulting me and posting bad science. I would enjoy slapping your face clean off your head. It's unfortunate that I can never actually pose that threat because, unlike me, you are too cowardly and deceitful to use your real identity when you're flaming people.

According to alancalverd, I was kicked out for "unparliamentary behavior." That's a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhpXhxP-WU

Hmm, is that parliamentary? NO. Even our do-nothing US Congress isn't that out of control. People specifically don't watch C-SPAN because it's boring. A few years ago, congressman Joe Wilson shouted the single word "liar" out of turn, and he was skewered by the press and members of both parties because that was unprecedented. But if that's the criterion you want to use, you, jeffreyH, Tim the Plumber and alancalverd should all be kicked out too. None of you agree with each other, but you all think you're right. The cacophony is deafening. Sounds a lot like Parliament to me, LOL
« Last Edit: 01/05/2016 14:55:58 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
"According to alancalverd, I was kicked out for "unparliamentary behavior." That's a joke.
"
Yes, that was a joke. I suspect that you were kicked out for making threats. Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat ( you said "I would enjoy slapping your face clean off your head. It's unfortunate that I can never actually pose that threat because") I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.
I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2016 15:07:05 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.
I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.
You had two choices; you could address the errors you made or you could be rude to people.
Given that you chose to be rude, who is the trash here?

Incidentally- to say "I need your ID to threaten you; please give me your ID" is pretty poorly thought through.
And, as I have already explained, I'm not giving y ID out because doing so would restrict my ability to post my opinion.
Do you actually understand that?

You also see not to have grasped the fact that I'm not a climate change sceptic.
How have you not managed to grasp that yet?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile




Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.


"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

You said;

Quote
So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.

So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.

It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.
I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.

You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.

What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.

And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.

Apparently CWTwit cannot recieve personal messages. Shame.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
For what it's worth, I care a great deal about climate change and its effect on humanity, which is why I take a very skeptical stance on the bad science that underpins current governmental responses to the problem (such as giving taxpayers' money to windmill manufacturers).

As I see it, climate change is inevitable, the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, and the effect will be disastrous in the next 50 years as the worst-affected populations take up arms to migrate to more habitable areas. Blaming western industry isn't going to help, particularly if the same treaties allow uninhibited expansion of coalburning industries in the east, and taxing travellers is just political cynicism.

Craig: mend your manners.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile




Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.


"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

You said;

Quote
So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.

So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!
I have answered he question several times.
My answer was (and remains)" It's not my field; go and ask the experts".
I even gave you a link to their web page.


Incidentally
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
For what it's worth, I care a great deal about climate change and its effect on humanity, which is why I take a very skeptical stance on the bad science that underpins current governmental responses to the problem (such as giving taxpayers' money to windmill manufacturers).

As I see it, climate change is inevitable, the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, and the effect will be disastrous in the next 50 years as the worst-affected populations take up arms to migrate to more habitable areas. Blaming western industry isn't going to help, particularly if the same treaties allow uninhibited expansion of coalburning industries in the east, and taxing travellers is just political cynicism.

Craig: mend your manners.

Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile




Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,

1, Scientifically justifiable

and

2, Actually scary

Thanks.


"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.

You said;

Quote
So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.

So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!
I have answered he question several times.
My answer was (and remains)" It's not my field; go and ask the experts".
I even gave you a link to their web page.


Incidentally
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile


You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....


What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?


Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile


You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.

This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.

Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;

Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....


What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?

I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.

That is why YOU think this.

From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4812
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?
A small rise in temperature may be no big deal, except where the behavior of plants and animals is strongly linked. That is, pretty much the entire temperate zone. Crop sprouting from seeds, bulbs and tubers is determined by temperature change, but animal migration and reproduction (including birds, bees and wild mammals) is also directed by day length.

A warm spring can produce early flowering that is not consummated by pollination from migratory insects. However those insects that hibernate or hatch in the spring may reach maturinty and die before the migratory insectivorous birds arrive. It's a remarkably delicate balance that gets in and out of kilter from year to year, but a steady trend can produce an unforseeable change, with medium-term potential for crop failure or insect devastation.   

Small changes in temperature can be associated with very large changes in tropical rainfall patterns or seasonal melts in the sub-arctic and mountains. Whilst relatively sophisticated  agronomies like Egypt can cope with a degree of flood variation, more marginal and population-stressed areas in the Indian subcontinent cannot tolerate much change in monsoon patterns.

It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance