Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Another Global Warming Thread

Another Global Warming Thread (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The evidence we have does not prove if the warming is from human activity or part of the natural and ever changing dynamic evolution of our planet. If you go by evidence only on temperatures, then something is very wrong with how cool the planet is, based on historical evidence. And who's to blame for the ice ages and then the warm ups since...

I accept that human activity is speeding up the warming. I don't think we are the cause. I think it was already occurring on its own as the evidence suggests. Just means we will be 4c warmer 100 years sooner (maybe) we should be spending efforts on cleaning up the air for our own health. And we should be preparing our nations for the effects of a warming planet.
You'll note that I didn't make any claims about global warming. I only take issue with stupendousman's claims of evidence that "scientific consensus" claims were made in the 70's over issues where there was no consensus in the scientific community.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 07:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
  1. First off, where does the study say "If the additional warming is caused by CO2, then..."? To be clear, you originally stated: You specifically say that you're citing the study. I just took your word for it before this point, but having now gone to check the context of the quote, I simply can't find this wording at all. If you're actually paraphrasing, not citing, then please point out for me the sentence which you are paraphrasing.
  2. The study talks about the warming in addition to direct CO2 forcing. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you've missed this point: the warming is in addition to CO2 forcing: "At the accepted equilibrium climate sensitivities of 1.5-4.5 C warming per doubling of CO2 (ref. 1), our calculated 1.7-fold increase in CO2 would at most have caused 3.5 C warming during the PETM main phase (Fig. 4). This constitutes an enigma because proxy records globally indicate surface warming by 5.9 C (refs 5 9). If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then feedbacks and/or forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming. The origin of this additional warming is unknown at present."
Let's see now, which one of greg's emotional rants should I address this time? The quote you provide above? Yeah... you asked where I got it. I answered; "from the author of the study". Do you wanna go back and read again? Am I supposed to assume that your reading comprehension is actually very strong with regard to dry, evidentiary data, but woefully weak in standard discourse?

C'mon man, calm down already.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 07:37 AM
 
Shortcut;

CO2 did not exist in a vacuum then just as it does not today. The study uses the nomenclature; "additional warming" simply because that is the amount of warming over and above that which current CO2 forcing calculations can account for the PETM warming. THINK ABOUT IT! () CO2 has an understood role in climate change; a measured, understood role. Based on this understanding, the evidence suggests CO2 did not play as critical a role in the PETM warming event as it was supposed to have. This is evidence greg, data. The author refers to this as an enigma. Know what enigma means? In the context of the conclusions of the study, it means they fully expected to be able to account for the PETM warming by applying that understanding except, they couldn't greg. They were surprised they couldn't. They were surprised at how little CO2 could account for the warming. They knew they were dealing with a period 55 MYA. In fact, they specifically chose this period as a possible analog for understanding more of climate sensitivity based on factors similar to today. It hardly makes sense, after our understanding of the role of CO2 in climate change is challenged by evidence; to only conclude that the climate must be more sensitive to CO2 than once-thought and caste off the enigma by giving the other drivers of climate change the short-shrift. The author didn't do this. Remember, they spent "an entire paragraph discussing them". Why? Because the study doesn't suggest that's the only conclusion because the author seems to understand that CO2 never has and never will exist in a vacuum. You often say the right words greg as if you acknowledge the infancy of the discipline and the other factors involved, but then squander them on zealotry to be nothing more than argumentative for the sake of it.

For decades the weloveoil scientists have been insisting that these other mechanisms such as water vapor feedback, cloud feedback, and TSI have not been adequately addressed by those insisting CO2 exists in a vacuum. We're not talking about an infinite number of possibilities in this closed system greg. This study goes further to affirm their suppositions (while not saying Al Gore is a poopy-butt stinky-face!) than any anti-AGW blog could ever hope to. That's what's bothering you most about it.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'll take that as a no then.

I'm having trouble with this "Scientists claim we are doomed if we don't...." stuff. This sounds more like media spin on scientific recommendations to me. The scientific recommendations I suspect are more along the lines of "This appears to be happening.... so if we cut down on ....... then we should reduce the chance of ....... but even if we don't, nothing bad will happen so we might as well try it."
Well, gee, if scientists aren't predicting that anything bad will happen, then there's no reason to feel compelled to do things like gut entire industries, losing jobs, increasing regulations and raising taxes.

Right?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You've got a statement from a university professor saying "demographers agree almost unanimously" and a vague statement from Life referring to a unquantified number of scientists while noting that "others disagree". This is hardly "no amount of evidence" to bolster your claim that media is telling us there is consensus when there really isn't (one of your examples, the professor, isn't even from the media).
I had over a dozen quotes from a very short period of time from 40 years ago showing that experts and scientists where making wild predictions based on their examination of the scientific facts known at the time, all of which ended up being bunk, where they either claim specifically or by omission of facts, consensus.

You realize that you're doing the same thing here that you're accusing the media of doing? You're taking a handful of weak examples and are trying to convince us that these are representative of a much larger collection, likely with better examples since the first were so easy to obtain (also, there's your 40 years of memories!) ... without doing any of the research to back that claim up.
Yes, my "40 years of memories." When people observe things over a long period of time which shows a pattern, these "memories" are very useful in the decision making process. It's happened for at least the past 40 years, and even quite recently where we are told we have X number of years to correct global meltdown. I believe Al Gore's last predict we've got about 5 years left. I'm willing to bet none of these predictions come true, based on my observation that they pretty much NEVER do.

There's really no need for me to go "research" what I've already seen. If I've seen my wife's face for the past 20 years, I don't need to research what she looks like to inform me of her appearance any more than after hearing all the dire predictions over the last 40, that I need to spend my valuable time doing "research" on something that if it were even proffered as "evidence" would not make a bit of difference. It's clear that with the mindless nitpicking of the worthy evidence already provided that no amount of real evidence will make a difference.

On the other hand, if you can show me where over the past 40 years where some predictions of dire environmental circumstances came to fruition, which would have benefited from action already desired by left-leaners and the media, it would go far in helping to change my opinion that the prediction of scientists who are part-time politicians, should be granted considerable notice.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Well, gee, if scientists aren't predicting that anything bad will happen, then there's no reason to feel compelled to do things like gut entire industries, losing jobs, increasing regulations and raising taxes.

Right?
You realize that you're trying to generate fear in the *opposite* direction of "The Scientists", right? You're being no better than The Scientists and The Media that you're complaining so much about in this thread.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You realize that you're trying to generate fear in the *opposite* direction of "The Scientists", right? You're being no better than The Scientists and The Media that you're complaining so much about in this thread.
I'm trying to show that predictions made by "The Scientists and The Media" in regards to impending environmental disaster have been wildly unreliable. So, while maybe not fomenting "fear," i most certainly would like to show that the patterns give sure reason for considerable doubt which should make us pause from an undertaking of actions which very likely could hurt Amercian's quality of life.

If I where doing the opposite of what "The Scientists and The Media" where doing, I would be suggesting that the evidence shows we should be doing the exact opposite what they are promoting. I'd be suggesting that if we don't consume more and expel more potential pollutants into the atmosphere that we are risking disaster. I'm not promoting that.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
CO2 has an understood role in climate change; a measured, understood role. Based on this understanding, the evidence suggests CO2 did not play as critical a role in the PETM warming event as it was supposed to have.
Completely wrong. The authors of the study presupposed that CO2 played exactly the role it was supposed to. Namely, that atmospheric CO2 increased by a certain amount, and so did the temperature.

You seem to be desperately fighting the red herring that only CO2 accounts for warming. That's completely laughable. No one believes that. I've stated that about 30 times in this thread alone. Guess it's the only way you can justify soldiering on with your sadly failing argument about this study, though.


For decades the weloveoil scientists have been insisting that these other mechanisms such as water vapor feedback, cloud feedback, and TSI have not been adequately addressed by those insisting CO2 exists in a vacuum.
Please show me a modern scientific study which states that CO2 exists in a vacuum. Hell I'll lower that to any scientific publication.

I'll wait. Forever. You can't do it. Complete red herring.

This study goes further to affirm their suppositions ... than any anti-AGW blog could ever hope to. That's what's bothering you most about it.
The only thing "bothering" me about it is that you still haven't read it and still don't understand it - and now you've gone so far as to show it to stupendousman, who will also proceed to use it incorrectly until the day he dies. And despite my complete public thrashing of your argument and repeated examples of how you've interpreted the study completely incorrectly, you're desperately trying to wiggle out of having to say "I was wrong."

Read that?

You were wrong, ebuddy. And you'll never admit it, because you're a contrarian and always will be.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 31, 2012 at 11:48 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 10:16 AM
 
I can confirm that all the missing carbon is in my shed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You'll note that I didn't make any claims about global warming. I only take issue with stupendousman's claims of evidence that "scientific consensus" claims were made in the 70's over issues where there was no consensus in the scientific community.
Ah ok, I guess I didn't read that right when skimming through.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Actually CO2 like most other gasses DO exist in the vacuum of space.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
*facepalm*
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Actually CO2 like most other gasses DO exist in the vacuum of space.
You have carbon dioxide in space, it is formed in nebulaes after supernova explsions. But its in the form of ICE not a gas because of how cold space is.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 01:51 PM
 
All very informative I'm sure, but the context of ebuddy's comments (and my reply to him) was whether CO2 "exists in a vacuum" in regards to "independently of other factors."

Not whether it exists in the vacuum of space.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 02:00 PM
 
Well I was replying to BadKosh
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Completely wrong. The authors of the study presupposed that CO2 played exactly the role it was supposed to. Namely, that atmospheric CO2 increased by a certain amount, and so did the temperature.
In fact, you're perfectly wrong and this is why I claim you're insisting that CO2 exists in a vacuum. It just doesn't. The authors presupposed a role for CO2; one that turned out surprisingly errant and demonstrably insufficient to account for the warming event. I'll give you the first half of your argument though with the exception of the need for the word only in front of increased.

You seem to be desperately fighting the red herring that only CO2 accounts for warming. That's completely laughable. No one believes that. I've stated that about 30 times in this thread alone. Guess it's the only way you can justify soldiering on with your sadly failing argument about this study, though.
I'm not desperately fighting anything. I'm just providing our forum an expose on zealotry.

Please show me a modern scientific study which states that CO2 exists in a vacuum. Hell I'll lower that to any scientific publication.

I'll wait. Forever. You can't do it. Complete red herring.
It's a term to illustrate the absurdity of your line of argumentation greg. Not unlike calling your arguments silly.
  • ebuddy: Shortcut, your arguments here are just silly.
  • Shortcut: SILLY?!? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? THERE ARE NO CLOWNS IN MY POST!!! DO YOU SEE ANY CLOWNS IN MY POST!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!

Otherwise to your points above, yeah... this is why your angle is often so bizarre to me. My problem has not been with the studies themselves, modern or otherwise. This particular study however, has given you somewhat of a fit apparently.

The only thing "bothering" me about it is that you still haven't read it and still don't understand it - and now you've gone so far as to show it to stupendousman, who will also proceed to use it incorrectly until the day he dies. And despite my complete public thrashing of your argument and repeated examples of how you've interpreted the study completely incorrectly, you're desperately trying to wiggle out of having to say "I was wrong."
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything greg. I'm standing firm to my statements in this thread and while you've insisted there's somehow been a public thrashing here, I think you're woefully mistaken on all counts and worse; you've demonstrated that if there truly is a meritorious concern here, you'd likely be the last person most would pick to argue it.

You were wrong, ebuddy. And you'll never admit it, because you're a contrarian and always will be.
I'm sorry if facts and evidence cause problems for your views. Don't blame the messenger.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In fact, you're perfectly wrong and this is why I claim you're insisting that CO2 exists in a vacuum. It just doesn't. The authors presupposed a role for CO2; one that turned out surprisingly errant and demonstrably insufficient to account for the warming event. I'll give you the first half of your argument though with the exception of the need for the word only in front of increased.
...what sort of two-faced argument are you trying to make here? The role "presupposed" for CO2 is the one based on forcing calculations - the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a certain logarithmic forcing effect (of up to 3.5 C in that case). This role is only "surprisingly errant and demonstrably insufficient" if you assume that all warming must be caused by an increase in CO2 - something the authors specifically did not do. AREN'T YOU THE ONE ALSO CLAIMING THAT OTHER WARMING FACTORS EXIST?? I'll repeat:
You seem to be desperately fighting the red herring that only CO2 accounts for warming. That's completely laughable. No one believes that. I've stated that about 30 times in this thread alone. Guess it's the only way you can justify soldiering on with your sadly failing argument about this study, though.
The conclusion of this study was that other forcing mechanisms were present during the PETM. That's the "take-away message". It's common knowledge that other forcing mechanisms are always present; what this study discovered is that they were present and somehow active during the PETM. No one knew that before!

The only way on earth you can go from that conclusion to saying that CO2 was "insufficient" is if you believe that CO2 must cause all warming. And if you believe that...then you must not believe in non-CO2 warming mechanisms. And since you're the one who keeps talking about the existence of other non-CO2 warming mechanisms...well, let's say two-faced is a very, very kind word for the type of argument you're engaging in right now.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'm not desperately fighting anything. I'm just providing our forum an expose on zealotry.
Indeed. Holding to your presupposed position despite a thorough and complete dismantling of both the scientific papers you provided as evidence - including irrefutable proof that you either mis-read or simply did not read the Zeebe study, and mis-stated key elements of it - is quite the expose on zealotry. This has also a great expose on having a strong opinion and arguing that opinion when you don't actually have any knowledge or evidence to support it.

Unfortunately for you, it's your own zealotry and ignorance on this topic that's been exposed. Stop this petty nonsense, please - this study does not support any anti-AGW argument in the slightest.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The conclusion of this study was that other forcing mechanisms were present during the PETM. That's the "take-away message". It's common knowledge that other forcing mechanisms are always present; what this study discovered is that they were present and somehow active during the PETM. No one knew that before!
I love the exclamation point.

Active huh? No one knew what before; that an increase in CO2 would account for such a surprisingly small amount of increase in global surface temperature? That's the take-away from the study if one is concerned about little things like... evidence.

The only way on earth you can go from that conclusion to saying that CO2 was "insufficient" is if you believe that CO2 must cause all warming. And if you believe that...then you must not believe in non-CO2 warming mechanisms. And since you're the one who keeps talking about the existence of other non-CO2 warming mechanisms...well, let's say two-faced is a very, very kind word for the type of argument you're engaging in right now.
Yep, CO2 must cause all warming greg. That must be what I'm saying.

Indeed. Holding to your presupposed position despite a thorough and complete dismantling of both the scientific papers you provided as evidence - including irrefutable proof that you either mis-read or simply did not read the Zeebe study, and mis-stated key elements of it - is quite the expose on zealotry. This has also a great expose on having a strong opinion and arguing that opinion when you don't actually have any knowledge or evidence to support it.
If this is what you need to drive your dogma, so be it. You're not much harm to anyone here.

Unfortunately for you, it's your own zealotry and ignorance on this topic that's been exposed. Stop this petty nonsense, please - this study does not support any anti-AGW argument in the slightest.
Oh it most certainly does, but I do not refer to it as "anti-AGW" as much as; "pro-science". Either way, the study was almost as effective for my arguments as your responses to its citation.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Active huh? No one knew what before; that an increase in CO2 would account for such a surprisingly small amount of increase in global surface temperature? That's the take-away from the study if one is concerned about little things like... evidence.
WHAT IN GOD'S HOLY NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES CAN HAVE FAR MORE POWERFUL DRIVER(S) THAN CO2 IS PERFECTLY COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IS PROBABLY TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL.

I'll repeat:
Originally Posted by What I've said time and time again
You seem to be desperately fighting the red herring that only CO2 accounts for warming. That's completely laughable. No one believes that. I've stated that about 30 times in this thread alone. Guess it's the only way you can justify soldiering on with your sadly failing argument about this study, though.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 03:23 AM
 
Are you trying to suggest Co2 on its own is responsible for global warming?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
WHAT IN GOD'S HOLY NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES CAN HAVE FAR MORE POWERFUL DRIVER(S) THAN CO2 IS PERFECTLY COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IS PROBABLY TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL.

I'll repeat:
RIGHT! AND ISN'T THAT IN FACT WHAT THE STUDY SUGGESTS MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE DURING THE PETM?!?

YES EBUDDY!!! ... like a friggin' episode of Perry Mason, but at least we're getting somewhere finally.

Originally Posted by IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report of 2007:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Which anthropogenic greenhouse gas comprises the majority of emissions greg; A. Carbon Dioxide B. Methane C. Nitrous Oxide?

Perhaps the IPCC will modify their next AR to include the surprising findings of our more recent study so they'll better appreciate what they learned back in high school.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
RIGHT! AND ISN'T THAT IN FACT WHAT THE STUDY SUGGESTS MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE DURING THE PETM?!?
...absolutely?? It's not terribly helpful that we don't have enough information to say what it could have been, though. It'd be useful to find out whether it's one of the forcing mechanisms we've already identified - or whether it's one that's even still in existence.

To repeat my question in another form - what in God's name does this then have to do with CO2? You're the one who claimed this study somehow invalidated CO2 forcing as "insufficient". It doesn't at all - our increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past ~250 years should still have the exact same forcing effect, which is the calculation done by the study.

If your intent was to cite the existence of other forcing mechanisms; there are tons of other, better papers to use as examples - ones where we can actually describe and measure the forcing involved.

Which anthropogenic greenhouse gas comprises the majority of emissions greg; A. Carbon Dioxide B. Methane C. Nitrous Oxide?
It would be CO2 I imagine. I'm not sure of the point of this question - what are you trying to say?

Perhaps the IPCC will modify their next AR to include the surprising findings of our more recent study so they'll better appreciate what they learned back in high school.
What recent study? The Zeebe study? I'm a little confused here.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 12:18 AM
 
Nice article on the collapse of the Harappan civilization.
Huge Ancient Civilization’s Collapse Explained - Yahoo! News
The mysterious fall of the largest of the world's earliest urban civilizations nearly 4,000 years ago in what is now India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh now appears to have a key culprit — ancient climate change, researchers say.
Some had suggested that the Harappan heartland received its waters from a large glacier-fed Himalayan river, thought by some to be the Sarasvati, a sacred river of Hindu mythology. However, the researchers found that only rivers fed by monsoon rains flowed through the region.
Previous studies suggest the Ghaggar, an intermittent river that flows only during strong monsoons, may best approximate the location of the Sarasvati. Archaeological evidence suggested the river, which dissipates into the desert along the dried course of Hakra valley, was home to intensive settlement during Harappan times.
"We think we settled a long controversy about the mythic Sarasvati River," Giosan said.
Initially, the monsoon-drenched rivers the researchers identified were prone to devastating floods. Over time, monsoons weakened, enabling agriculture and civilization to flourish along flood-fed riverbanks for nearly 2,000 years.
"The insolation — the solar energy received by the Earth from the sun — varies in cycles, which can impact monsoons," Giosan said. "In the last 10,000 years, the Northern Hemisphere had the highest insolation from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, and since then insolation there decreased. All climate on Earth is driven by the sun, and so the monsoons were affected by the lower insolation, decreasing in force. This meant less rain got into continental regions affected by monsoons over time." [50 Amazing Facts About Earth]
Eventually, these monsoon-based rivers held too little water and dried, making them unfavorable for civilization.
45/47
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 12:22 AM
 
Why are we still debating this? Are we really that starved of entertainment?

"Things that really don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things for $1,000, Alex."
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 12:24 AM
 
Its not just Gas emissions....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
...absolutely?? It's not terribly helpful that we don't have enough information to say what it could have been, though. It'd be useful to find out whether it's one of the forcing mechanisms we've already identified - or whether it's one that's even still in existence.

To repeat my question in another form - what in God's name does this then have to do with CO2? You're the one who claimed this study somehow invalidated CO2 forcing as "insufficient". It doesn't at all - our increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past ~250 years should still have the exact same forcing effect, which is the calculation done by the study.
Perhaps the next IPCC AR will read; "we need a lot more carbon to explain the warming."

If your intent was to cite the existence of other forcing mechanisms; there are tons of other, better papers to use as examples - ones where we can actually describe and measure the forcing involved.
I guess you'd have to take it up with olePigeon who requested the study. If you've got some more recent studies that demonstrate the possible, dominant role of these other mechanisms over anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, I'll gladly consider them for our next discussion.

It would be CO2 I imagine. I'm not sure of the point of this question - what are you trying to say?
I just wanted to ensure you understood what primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas the IPCC must be referring to. CO2; mankind's minority contribution in total emissions as a possible minority factor in climate change.

What recent study? The Zeebe study? I'm a little confused here.
You're not confused on this greg. I'm of course referring to the study we've been talking about for three pages now.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Perhaps the next IPCC AR will read; "we need a lot more carbon to explain the warming."
*facepalm*

I mean...I don't even...

Let me quote myself, shall I?
Originally Posted by Me, last page
*ebuddy: our current estimates are based on the direct CO2 forcing calculation which was shown to be "too low" for the PETM period. Please think about this. Stop. Think.
Direct CO2 forcing today: explains our current observed climate warming.
Direct CO2 forcing in PETM: does not explain observed climate warming; something else was present that caused additional warming. That something is not (yet) present today, because otherwise we'd be warming more than our direct CO2 forcing calculations predict. We are not; we're completely in line with those predictions.


It's maddening to me that you don't understand this simple point. You've missed the crux of this entire study: the calculations that we use today to predict and monitor our ongoing climate change science, which currently accurately mirror our observed warming, and are largely believed to be correct by all climate scientists, are the very calculations used by Zeebe in this study to "explain" only a ~3.5 C increase in the observed warming. The rest of the warming observed in the PETM was considered by the authors of the study to be "in addition" to direct CO2 forcing.
If the IPCC was saying "we need a lot more carbon to explain the warming", then that would mean we'll have seen a lot more warming than our current predictions, which are largely based on direct CO2 forcing (along with the other relevant GHGs). Honestly, you're arguing yourself into a circle here, ebuddy. Now you're again indirectly claiming that we should be worried about more warming than the current models predict.

I guess you'd have to take it up with olePigeon who requested the study. If you've got some more recent studies that demonstrate the possible, dominant role of these other mechanisms over anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, I'll gladly consider them for our next discussion.
You're certainly right that the study indicates that there may be other profound warming sources at work besides CO2. (Again, this is something that has been known and studied for, literally, decades.)

My problem is with any claim that this somehow throws doubt on the nature of CO2 forcing. It doesn't. At all. Direct CO2 forcing still has the same calculable affect.
I just wanted to ensure you understood what primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas the IPCC must be referring to. CO2; mankind's minority contribution in total emissions as a possible minority factor in climate change.
Again: we know, to a good extent, the affect of CO2. We also know, to a good extent, what other "natural" warming mechanisms may be present and affecting our climate, and which other "natural" warming mechanisms may affect the climate but are not currently having a forcing effect. There are very, very basic summaries available on various Wikipedia pages.

Once again: we know the planet will warm a certain amount based on our GHG emissions. What you're saying is that there may end up being other, as-yet-unknown mechanisms, or, that known mechanisms will somehow be triggered by the rise in CO2 - and, because of the existence of those, CO2 forcing is somehow invalidated.

It doesn't even make sense. CO2 is what it is. A cost-benefit analysis based on the possible existence of other warming mechansisms is a completely different can of worms that has nothing to do with the "correctness" of CO2 forcing. (That's also an analysis that I completely agree with doing and it's probably likely that we're in agreement on the outcome of that particular analysis.)
You're not confused on this greg. I'm of course referring to the study we've been talking about for three pages now.
I'm confused on how and why you think this study changes anything in the IPCC report. The existence of other warming mechanisms is already in the report. The only thing this "changes" is that we now now have a better idea of the operation of other warming mechanisms during that particular time period. (None of which is particularly relevant as of yet to the IPCC report, since we haven't yet been able to identify these mechanisms and thus determine if they're a current concern....)

(You should try reading it, sometime. Since you apparently refused to read this 3-page paper from Zeebe, however, I'm going to bet you haven't actually read the AR....)
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 11:08 AM
 
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today • The Register

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.

Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now.
Interesting that a certain type of pollution cools, another type warms, and that 'coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now'.

Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.
Wonder what has made today's climatologists 'neglect' solar variations.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 12:05 PM
 
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Wonder what has made today's climatologists 'neglect' solar variations.
It's "probably" because even though solar irradiation is clearly a strong driver of changing earth temperature...no one has been able to make solar or cosmic variation explain the warming the earth has experienced over the past few decades?

...not unless they also take CO2 into account, of course.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 03:32 PM
 
Hahaha - right on. Hilarious! Guess that copy/paste didn't quite work.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 05:18 PM
 


I never actually herd about the Global Dimming before. That is pretty interesting, going to read it at home later tonight. Makes you wonder about our ability to change the global temperature though at will. When you think about it, who's at most to be hurt by global warming right now. China, Asia, Africa, mostly second and third world countries. Canada is in great shape for global warming, so is the US mostly. Russia is fine. Not totally sure on Europe but they are rich enough to mitigate problems. I wonder if this is part of the plan (wink wink) im actually joking about the plan part.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
...not unless they also take CO2 into account, of course.
Which might explain about 1/9th of earth's warming.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2012, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
If the IPCC was saying "we need a lot more carbon to explain the warming", then that would mean we'll have seen a lot more warming than our current predictions, which are largely based on direct CO2 forcing (along with the other relevant GHGs).
Hmm... until you actually try to apply the current predictions to a period chosen as an analog for understanding climate sensitivity and feedbacks today... then you end up orders of magnitude off the mark in accounting for global climate change. Keep wriggling and writhing shortcut.

Honestly, you're arguing yourself into a circle here, ebuddy. Now you're again indirectly claiming that we should be worried about more warming than the current models predict.
You're making this up as there's no way to make that conclusion from anything I've said.

You're certainly right that the study indicates that there may be other profound warming sources at work besides CO2. (Again, this is something that has been known and studied for, literally, decades.)


My problem is with any claim that this somehow throws doubt on the nature of CO2 forcing. It doesn't. At all. Direct CO2 forcing still has the same calculable affect.
Of course it throws doubt on the nature of CO2 forcing. We took what we know today of CO2 forcing and its calculable affect didn't hold up; it was applied to PETM where it came up surprisingly insufficient to explain the warming event. You're not considering the evidence shortcut.

Again: we know, to a good extent, the affect of CO2.
Right, except the affect of CO2 was challenged by Zeeb's study.

We also know, to a good extent, what other "natural" warming mechanisms may be present and affecting our climate, and which other "natural" warming mechanisms may affect the climate but are not currently having a forcing effect. There are very, very basic summaries available on various Wikipedia pages.
The evidence in Zeeb's study suggests the possibility that the other "natural" warming mechanisms have not been adequately considered and could potentially account for the lion's share of warming. Hence, their surprise.

Once again: we know the planet will warm a certain amount based on our GHG emissions.
Not really and as science continues to advance, I maintain it will continue further away from the AGW supposition.

What you're saying is that there may end up being other, as-yet-unknown mechanisms, or, that known mechanisms will somehow be triggered by the rise in CO2 - and, because of the existence of those, CO2 forcing is somehow invalidated.
No. I'm saying mankind is a minority contributor of CO2 and CO2 may in fact be a minority contributor to global climate change.

It doesn't even make sense. CO2 is what it is. A cost-benefit analysis based on the possible existence of other warming mechansisms is a completely different can of worms that has nothing to do with the "correctness" of CO2 forcing. (That's also an analysis that I completely agree with doing and it's probably likely that we're in agreement on the outcome of that particular analysis.)
You cannot continue to simply say CO2 forcing calculations are correct when they continue to prove insufficient in accounting for global climate change. I mean... you can, but not out of any interest in scientific evidence.

I'm confused on how and why you think this study changes anything in the IPCC report. The existence of other warming mechanisms is already in the report. The only thing this "changes" is that we now now have a better idea of the operation of other warming mechanisms during that particular time period. (None of which is particularly relevant as of yet to the IPCC report, since we haven't yet been able to identify these mechanisms and thus determine if they're a current concern....)
Zeeb's study suggests these other mechanisms have not been given enough respect with regard to their forcing potential. The IPCC AR is an authored contrivance and is not consensus view, but establishment view. You cannot claim mankind's minority contribution to CO2 emissions as a potential minority contributor to climate change is very likely the dominant factor in climate change and cite any interest in the advancement of science or acknowledge its evidence.

(You should try reading it, sometime. Since you apparently refused to read this 3-page paper from Zeebe, however, I'm going to bet you haven't actually read the AR....)
Keep recycling feeble arguments greg. It has been fun watching you struggle with it.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2012, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Hmm... until you actually try to apply the current predictions to a period chosen as an analog for understanding climate sensitivity and feedbacks today... then you end up orders of magnitude off the mark in accounting for global climate change. Keep wriggling and writhing shortcut.
"until you actually try to apply the current predictions to a period where other, more dominant forcing mechanisms were present..."

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You absolutely refuse to admit that we have currently identified other warming mechanisms, and they can be accounted for in our models...but they are not (yet) accounted for in our warming period. If we were experiencing a high period of solar irradiance, or had massive dinosaurs pumping out huge amounts of methane, then yes, it would be additional warming that direct CO2 forcing could account for.

But we have no data about these warming mechanisms in the PETM.

Also: "orders of magnitude off the mark?" CO2 accounts from 1-3.5 C warming instead of 9 C warming, and you call that "orders of magnitude"? Time to google dictionary about a basic scientific phrase.
Of course it throws doubt on the nature of CO2 forcing. We took what we know today of CO2 forcing and its calculable affect didn't hold up; it was applied to PETM where it came up surprisingly insufficient to explain the warming event. You're not considering the evidence shortcut.
I'm considering the lack of evidence, just like the authors of the study were doing. CO2 doesn't need to be the sole driver of climate change. The fact that you keep claiming that climate scientists are saying it should be is, as I've already said, laughable.

Right, except the affect of CO2 was challenged by Zeeb's study.
Completely wrong.

The evidence in Zeeb's study suggests the possibility that the other "natural" warming mechanisms have not been adequately considered and could potentially account for the lion's share of warming. Hence, their surprise.
Completely wrong insofar as what had been "adequately considered". The study was based solely on carbon in the carbon cycle. There was no way to account for other natural warming mechanisms - there's simply no data. As I've said time and time again to you in this thread, if there was more data we might easily be able to identify the hidden driver(s).

Not really and as science continues to advance, I maintain it will continue further away from the AGW supposition.
...and you do this with zero evidence besides a study you apparently haven't read and thus can't understand.

You cannot continue to simply say CO2 forcing calculations are correct when they continue to prove insufficient in accounting for global climate change. I mean... you can, but not out of any interest in scientific evidence.
I repeat, in bold this time: there are other drivers. There are always other drivers. Zeebe was working solely with the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. Do you not understand what this means?

Keep recycling feeble arguments greg. It has been fun watching you struggle with it.
It's been even more fun discovering that despite all the erroneous statements you've made about this study, and which I've directly called you out on......you're making the exact same arguments now as when you first mentioned the study. Your personal views come first, and you struggle to fit what evidence you can within those views. When a given piece of evidence is proven false, you simply repeat your argument and move on to the next piece you can find.

It doesn't matter that:
- I've actually read the study and have pointed out where your arguments are wrong;
- The authors of the study disagree entirely with your conclusion;
- Other notable and current climate scientists within the discipline disagree entirely with your conclusion.

Somehow, you conclude something from this paper that everyone knowledgeable in the field thinks cannot be concluded. What does that say to you, ebuddy? You're a visionary? You're a savant? Nope. I'm afraid the real word is somewhat more...unkind, I suspect.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Jun 5, 2012 at 03:38 PM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2012, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Interesting that a certain type of pollution cools, another type warms, and that 'coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now'.
Nothing really new there. What you're describing is called "smog". It counter-acts warming by blocking sunlight. It also has some rather negative effects on health. Not really a solution to the challenges of warming.

     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2012, 12:19 PM
 
What I don't get, and this is probably a engineering question is why cars and trucks and ships don't have some sort of containment system to capture all the exhaust into a storage device which while filling up for gas can discharge the collected gas. Im sure its something that would add to the cost of vehicles, and take space away from but I don't think it can be that complex to do. It would create a totally new and large industry. More important would do a lot for human health and world health.

As for where the gas could be deposited, straight back into the earth where oil has been removed.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2012, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
"until you actually try to apply the current predictions to a period where other, more dominant forcing mechanisms were present..."

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You absolutely refuse to admit that we have currently identified other warming mechanisms, and they can be accounted for in our models...but they are not (yet) accounted for in our warming period. If we were experiencing a high period of solar irradiance, or had massive dinosaurs pumping out huge amounts of methane, then yes, it would be additional warming that direct CO2 forcing could account for.
It hardly makes sense to hand-pick a period with demonstrably similar conditions as today for offering insight into climate sensitivity and feedbacks, find our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing challenged by the data, and then turn around to claim this must mean we're dealing with dinosaur farts and/or some other prehistoric factor we know for certain doesn't exist today. In fact, that's not what they've said because that's not what the evidence suggests. The lack of carbon in the carbon cycle (modeled from proxy records in the study to calculate the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations) to account for the increase in global surface temperatures was an enigma greg. Unexpected. What does this point back to greg? What question does the author of the study suggest this begs? From the Abstract:

At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

So, accepted values for direct CO2 forcing can account for potentially as little as 1°C of a total 9°C increase in global surface temperatures. Are they assuming these other processes and/or feedbacks wouldn't exist today greg or are they assuming they would also exist today and that they need to be better taken into account when determining future climate change?

But we have no data about these warming mechanisms in the PETM.
We're also not suggesting they're exclusive to the PETM, quit pretending they are.

Also: "orders of magnitude off the mark?" CO2 accounts from 1-3.5 C warming instead of 9 C warming, and you call that "orders of magnitude"? Time to google dictionary about a basic scientific phrase.
You're right, I should've simply maintained "surprisingly off the mark".

I'm considering the lack of evidence, just like the authors of the study were doing. CO2 doesn't need to be the sole driver of climate change. The fact that you keep claiming that climate scientists are saying it should be is, as I've already said, laughable.
How on earth can you maintain that's what I'm saying when I'm quoting from a study, conducted by scientists; that suggests CO2 may be a minority driver of climate change? I'm saying the only way you can arrive at the conclusion you have is to give these other mechanisms the short-shrift in favor of CO2 forcing. That is not what the scientist has done. That is not what his study has done. That's what you're doing.

...and you do this with zero evidence besides a study you apparently haven't read and thus can't understand.

I repeat, in bold this time: there are other drivers. There are always other drivers. Zeebe was working solely with the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. Do you not understand what this means?
Yup. It means that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are insufficient for explaining a warming event that suggests the dominant driver of it may have in fact been other factors we need to more effectively consider going forward.

It's been even more fun discovering that despite all the erroneous statements you've made about this study, and which I've directly called you out on......you're making the exact same arguments now as when you first mentioned the study. Your personal views come first, and you struggle to fit what evidence you can within those views. When a given piece of evidence is proven false, you simply repeat your argument and move on to the next piece you can find.
You've proven zero false greg, zero. Absolutely nothing.

It doesn't matter that:
- I've actually read the study and have pointed out where your arguments are wrong;
- The authors of the study disagree entirely with your conclusion;
- Other notable and current climate scientists within the discipline disagree entirely with your conclusion.
You've only demonstrated how to filter evidence through the lens of a zealot. I'm in absolute, 100% agreement with the conclusion of the study, that's the problem you're having. Other notable and current climate scientists within this discipline believe your conclusion is myopic, premature, zealous, and does not agree with the evidence we continue to discover.

Somehow, you conclude something from this paper that everyone knowledgeable in the field thinks cannot be concluded. What does that say to you, ebuddy? You're a visionary? You're a savant? Nope. I'm afraid the real word is somewhat more...unkind, I suspect.
Of course, from the above I'm to assume that you have some inside track to everyone; that is all those knowledgeable in the field. You are climate science. You have the lock on all the evidence and you've got it all figured out because of course you have the pulse on all of them. It doesn't matter what the author of the study concludes, you know what he's really saying and that it is in agreement with everyone who is anyone... and greg of course.

Somehow I don't think I'm the one fooling himself with an overly-optimistic sense of self-worth.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2012, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It hardly makes sense to hand-pick a period with demonstrably similar conditions as today for offering insight into climate sensitivity and feedbacks,...
...what?

The evidence suggests demonstrably different "conditions" as today. Not "demonstrably similar". The authors of the study particularly note this point when they point out that their baseline atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1000ppm. Do you know our baseline CO2 concentration today, ebuddy?

The PETM was "similar" only insofar as that there was a sudden and rapid carbon release and a concurrent sudden and rapid rise in temperature. Beyond those "similarities of situation", the authors specifically note that the climate and environment itself was likely quite different. So now you've read to as far as the abstract, huh? Better keep reading.
...find our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing challenged by the data, and then turn around to claim this must mean we're dealing with dinosaur farts and/or some other prehistoric factor we know for certain doesn't exist today.
*facepalm*

It's amazing to me that you can't grasp the fact that this study in no way "challenges" our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing. From the abstract:
Originally Posted by the abstract you quoted
We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing,...
Translation: this study in no way "challenges" our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing. I thought we had already gotten past this point, ebuddy - now you're bringing it up again?

It's amazing that the authors of the study specifically say that something else was going on in addition to direct CO2 forcing...and you interpret that as "our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing [are] challenged by the data". I mean...astounding. Absolutely astounding.
Originally Posted by the abstrat
...other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.
"Hitherto unknown": we don't know what these processes were. We do not have that data. If we had that data, we might find out it was from mechanism(s) which we have currently identified; we might find out it was from mechanisms which are new to us; we might find out it would be an applicable warming mechanisms today, or it would not be an applicable warming mechanism today.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
and then turn around to claim this must mean we're dealing with dinosaur farts and/or some other prehistoric factor we know for certain doesn't exist today.
OTHER MECHANISMS. OTHER MECHANISMS. DINOSAUR FARTS WOULD BE ANOTHER MECHANISM. SO WOULD SOLAR FORCING. SO WOULD METHANE CLATHRATES. WHAT PART OF "OTHER MECHANISMS" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND EBUDDY?

Originally Posted by ebuddy
So, accepted values for direct CO2 forcing can account for potentially as little as 1°C of a total 9°C increase in global surface temperatures. Are they assuming these other processes and/or feedbacks wouldn't exist today greg or are they assuming they would also exist today and that they need to be better taken into account when determining future climate change?
They're not assuming anything; they're saying the quite-obvious point: that we should try to find out what these other mechanisms were/are, because it's possible they may exist today, and if so we need to find out whether we already know about them or take them into account.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
It means that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are insufficient for explaining a warming event...
Insufficient for explaining the total amount of warming during the PETM warming event.
...that suggests the dominant driver of it may have in fact been other factors...
Wrong: we don't know the driver and have no evidence to suggest what or who the driver was. CO2 could have been the driver; solar activity could have been the driver; any of these other mechanisms could have been the driver. The "dominant contributing factor to warming may have in fact been other factor(s)".
...we need to more effectively consider going forward.
"We may need to more effectively consider going forward". We've already identified a host of non-CO2 warming mechanisms which could have huge warming effects in addition to direct CO2 forcing - it could be any one of those, in which case we will have already "effectively considered it". As I've stated a million times already, it's entirely possible the additional warming was due to a convergence of events such as a massive, sudden methane release, increased solar activity, and farting dinosaurs (for example). We don't know. The issue is identifying what may have caused this "additional warming mechanism" so that we can find out:
  1. Whether it applies today?
  2. If so, do we already know about it and does it accord with out current calculations
  3. If we don't already know about it, how does it fit into our current calculations?

Originally Posted by ebuddy
You've only demonstrated how to filter evidence through the lens of a zealot. I'm in absolute, 100% agreement with the conclusion of the study,
No you're not. You're in "absolute 100% agreement" with a cherry-picked part of the conclusion of the study from which you then incorrectly apply to the discipline as a whole.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: it's absolutely laughable that you seem to think that anyone considers CO2 to be the sole driver of climate change - let alone climate scientists. Everyone knows about the existence of other drivers. The issue is that we can't currently find any other drivers that can explain our climate change, without using direct CO2 forcing.
Originally Posted by Zeebe, the author of the study, from a commentary written in Nature Geoscience magazine
To distinguish between different types of climate sensitivity, terms such as ‘fast feedback sensitivity’ and ‘Earth system sensitivity’ have been coined. Estimates of climate sensitivity that include only fast feedbacks such as changes in water vapour, clouds, snow, and sea ice are typically 2.0–4.5 °C per doubling of CO2 (ref. 3). In contrast, for some warm periods in Earth’s history such as the Pliocene epoch (about 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago), climate sensitivity has been estimated at 7–10 °C per doubling of CO2 based on palaeoclimate data. The latter estimate, however, includes Earth system feedbacks on all timescales such as changes in non-CO2 greenhouse gases, vegetation, dust/aerosols, ice sheets, ocean circulation, marine productivity, weathering and more. It is therefore crucial for researchers to properly define what they mean by climate sensitivity and to spell out the pertinent timescales and feedbacks involved.
...
During the PETM a large mass of carbon was released into Earth’s surface reservoirs, and surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C in a few thousand years. My colleagues and I recently estimated the size of the PETM carbon input based on sediment records of deep-sea carbonate dissolution and showed that the subsequent rise in atmospheric CO2 alone was insuffcient to explain the full amplitude of global warming. We concluded that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes must have caused portion of the PETM warming. The so-called climate sceptics subsequently abused our study as evidence that CO2 would have no control on climate. Such statements are ignorant at best, more likely deliberately misleading. Our study showed that there were processes in addition CO2 forcing that caused part of the warming, not that CO2 was irrelevant. The processes are as yet unidentified — some may have operated independently, others as a response or feedback to the CO2 release. Regardless, these processes demand our attention because they could be critical for accurate future warming predictions.
The "so-called climate skeptics subsequently abused our study...." Hmmmmmmmmm. I don't suppose you'd fall into that category, would you?
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Jun 6, 2012 at 01:31 PM. )
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2012, 11:43 AM
 
When do the two of you publish your book for the rest of the world
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2012, 01:33 PM
 
Hahaha....we should totally co-author. "Climate Change: A Schizophrenic Study"
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
...what?

The evidence suggests demonstrably different "conditions" as today. Not "demonstrably similar". The authors of the study particularly note this point when they point out that their baseline atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1000ppm. Do you know our baseline CO2 concentration today, ebuddy?

The PETM was "similar" only insofar as that there was a sudden and rapid carbon release and a concurrent sudden and rapid rise in temperature. Beyond those "similarities of situation", the authors specifically note that the climate and environment itself was likely quite different. So now you've read to as far as the abstract, huh? Better keep reading.
Still pretending the author makes no mention of the merit of this study in demonstrating the warming potential of these other mechanisms today eh; that these factors were all exclusive to the PETM? *facepalm* indeed. At least you've stopped *snort*ing. A moment of clarity at this point in our discussion may be useful.

*facepalm*

It's amazing to me that you can't grasp the fact that this study in no way "challenges" our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing. From the abstract:

Translation: this study in no way "challenges" our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing. I thought we had already gotten past this point, ebuddy - now you're bringing it up again?
The "in addition to direct CO2 forcing" also indicates; "the potential, much greater impact of other mechanisms..." You just can't see that at all can you? Simply not willing to look upon it? Plug your nose, close your eyes, and put your hands over your ears greg as we're going to go places your faithful ilk would excommunicate you for.

It's amazing that the authors of the study specifically say that something else was going on in addition to direct CO2 forcing...and you interpret that as "our accepted values for direct CO2 forcing [are] challenged by the data". I mean...astounding. Absolutely astounding.
Amazing you say... asounding...

"Hitherto unknown": we don't know what these processes were. We do not have that data. If we had that data, we might find out it was from mechanism(s) which we have currently identified; we might find out it was from mechanisms which are new to us; we might find out it would be an applicable warming mechanisms today, or it would not be an applicable warming mechanism today.

OTHER MECHANISMS. OTHER MECHANISMS. DINOSAUR FARTS WOULD BE ANOTHER MECHANISM. SO WOULD SOLAR FORCING. SO WOULD METHANE CLATHRATES. WHAT PART OF "OTHER MECHANISMS" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND EBUDDY?
Quit yelling at me, zealot. The part I don't understand is why you're pretending these factors are all exclusive to PETM. The entire conclusion of the study is predicated on the usefulness of this information in understanding more about climate sensitivity today, but what's greg's conclusion?

SHRUG ~meh... that's all DINOSAUR FARTS and weird ancient stuff from way back when.

We're being told that mankind is very likely the dominant cause of warming. Why? Because of his emissions. What are his emissions? There are three primarily, but one stands head and shoulders above the rest in volume. You were kind enough to play along and identify which anthropogenic ghg that is. Having done so, you're also aware of the focus of our study. Eureka greg, they're talking about the same concentrations. Amazing... astounding... *facepalm*

They're not assuming anything; they're saying the quite-obvious point: that we should try to find out what these other mechanisms were/are, because it's possible they may exist today, and if so we need to find out whether we already know about them or take them into account.
We should know what these mechanisms are because they may account for the lion's share of climate change according to the evidence of this study, yes.

Insufficient for explaining the total amount of warming during the PETM warming event.
Yup, being used as an analog for understanding more of climate sensitivity today. I know... you keep reminding me of the PETM as if you're still pretending someone has suggested these are all mechanisms that wouldn't exist today.

Wrong: we don't know the driver and have no evidence to suggest what or who the driver was.

CO2 could have been the driver; solar activity could have been the driver; any of these other mechanisms could have been the driver. The "dominant contributing factor to warming may have in fact been other factor(s)".
So I'm not wrong then, I'm right. Excellent. The answer you're looking for is Yes, they may be the dominant factor today which directly challenges the establishment position. You're so close.

"We may need to more effectively consider going forward".
You mean; we should not. Got it.

We've already identified a host of non-CO2 warming mechanisms which could have huge warming effects in addition to direct CO2 forcing - it could be any one of those, in which case we will have already "effectively considered it". As I've stated a million times already, it's entirely possible the additional warming was due to a convergence of events such as a massive, sudden methane release, increased solar activity, and farting dinosaurs (for example). We don't know. The issue is identifying what may have caused this "additional warming mechanism" so that we can find out:
  1. Whether it applies today?
  2. If so, do we already know about it and does it accord with out current calculations
  3. If we don't already know about it, how does it fit into our current calculations?


So... I've maintained the study calls into question our understanding of mankind's contribution to climate change today as expressed by the establishment of science and you've insisted it does not. I advised that the evidence from this study begs the question of the potential, dominant factors of these other mechanisms and you've placed your responses in full-on caps lock that it does not. I've claimed that the study calls into question our current knowledge and related forcing calculations and you continue to yell at me that it does not...

And then you close with the very questions themselves. Good show shortcut.

No you're not. You're in "absolute 100% agreement" with a cherry-picked part of the conclusion of the study from which you then incorrectly apply to the discipline as a whole.
Your problem is that I've cherry-picked the evidence itself and the scientist's own interpretation of it from the side commentary, myopic interpretations, strawmen, dogmatic presuppositions, emotional rhetoric, and the derision of skeptics.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: it's absolutely laughable that you seem to think that anyone considers CO2 to be the sole driver of climate change - let alone climate scientists. Everyone knows about the existence of other drivers. The issue is that we can't currently find any other drivers that can explain our climate change, without using direct CO2 forcing.
We start by identifying how insufficient direct CO2 forcing is in explaining climate change. Of course, you won't allow yourself to consider this, but... your strawman is noted. If you truly believe I've implied in any way, shape, or form that CO2 has been supposed the sole driver of climate change, you're stuck on strawmen and are so lacking in reading comprehension that there is no hope for reasonable discourse here. Or mired in dishonesty, resorting to any means necessary for winning an online argument.

The "so-called climate skeptics subsequently abused our study...." Hmmmmmmmmm. I don't suppose you'd fall into that category, would you?
No I certainly wouldn't as this is just another strawman. Unless of course you can cite where I've made the claim that CO2 has no control on climate? I'll make it easier on you; I haven't. Not once. Not ever. I may have cited man's minuscule contribution to overall CO2 emissions, but I've certainly never claimed CO2 has no control on climate.

In fact for the benefit of you, me, and Zeebe; can you show me anyone who is saying CO2 has no control on climate?
( Last edited by ebuddy; Jun 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Hahaha....we should totally co-author. "Climate Change: A Schizophrenic Study"
I'm thinking we should invite in the author of the paper you've been arguing about.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
OTHER MECHANISMS. OTHER MECHANISMS. DINOSAUR FARTS WOULD BE ANOTHER MECHANISM. SO WOULD SOLAR FORCING. SO WOULD METHANE CLATHRATES. WHAT PART OF "OTHER MECHANISMS" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND EBUDDY?
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Quit yelling at me, zealot. The part I don't understand is why you're pretending these factors are all exclusive to PETM. The entire conclusion of the study is predicated on the usefulness of this information in understanding more about climate sensitivity today, but what's greg's conclusion?

SHRUG ~meh... that's all DINOSAUR FARTS and weird ancient stuff from way back when.
*another facepalm*

I specifically mention 1) dinosaur farts, 2) solar forcing, and 3) methane clathrates....and you respond, again, by claiming that I'm saying that all these things are exclusive to the PETM.

It's absolutely impossible to talk to someone who has no idea what they're talking about. The fact that you think solar forcing and methane clathrates are exclusive to the PETM....well......I don't even......
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2012, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
*another facepalm*

I specifically mention 1) dinosaur farts, 2) solar forcing, and 3) methane clathrates....and you respond, again, by claiming that I'm saying that all these things are exclusive to the PETM.

It's absolutely impossible to talk to someone who has no idea what they're talking about. The fact that you think solar forcing and methane clathrates are exclusive to the PETM....well......I don't even......
The dogma is strong in this one. I seized on the one variable you provided that of course could not exist today to illustrate how silly your argument was. You respond by doubling down on your dishonesty of course.

You're right, it is impossible to talk to someone who has no idea what they're talking about and will resort to strawmen and dishonesty as a cover for their ignorance.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2012, 10:07 AM
 
What "one variable"? The study itself references other possible forcing mechanisms. I mentioned "dinosaur farts" specifically because it was brought up by mattyb earlier in this thread, but I also mentioned it in conjunction with several other warming mechanisms (not only in my post but in several other posts in this thread). Your response:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The part I don't understand is why you're pretending these factors are all exclusive to PETM. The entire conclusion of the study is predicated on the usefulness of this information in understanding more about climate sensitivity today, but what's greg's conclusion?

SHRUG ~meh... that's all DINOSAUR FARTS and weird ancient stuff from way back when.
You quoted my post, and then specifically called solar forcing and methane clathrates "weird ancient stuff from way back when".

You can either:
1) Admit you apparently didn't know what those things were; or
2) Admit you didn't really read my post; or
3) Admit you completely mis-characterized my clear statements.

I'm sure you'll choose the other option, though: 4) not admit to anything. Your modus operandi at full effect: evade, deny, and repeat the same point.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
You can either:
1) Admit you apparently didn't know what those things were; or
2) Admit you didn't really read my post; or
3) Admit you completely mis-characterized my clear statements.

I'm sure you'll choose the other option, though: 4) not admit to anything. Your modus operandi at full effect: evade, deny, and repeat the same point.
5) Admit I was poking fun at you. I'm sorry, it won't happen again.

To sum up: Climate change is real and mankind is very likely responsible for a minuscule percentage of CO2 emissions that may account for 1/9th of an increase in global surface temperature.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
To sum up: Climate change is real and mankind is very likely responsible for a minuscule percentage of CO2 emissions that may account for 1/9th of an increase in global surface temperature.
Completely inaccurate.

To re-state correctly:

To sum up: Climate change is real and mankind is very likely responsible for the vast majority of the increase in CO2 emissions that almost certainly account for approximately 1.5-3.5 degree C increases in global surface temperature from 1900-2100.

In addition, there are other warming processes which may further increase the temperature of the earth, perhaps to a degree several times above the warming caused by CO2. As of now, none of these mechanisms appear to be significantly active, but it is possible that some may be triggered by a rise in CO2 and/or earth's warming, and it is also possible that they may have no causal connection to earth process and happen more or less randomly and be difficult to predict (e.g. cosmic rays). These appear to have been active during some warming periods in the past, so it is important that we try to learn more about these additional warming factors and try to identify whether they will come into play during our current warming period.
It's amazing to me that you've found this single study that has found a specific period in Earth's history that demonstrates what climate scientists have been saying for decades - that other, incredibly powerful climate drivers exist - and have seized on the conclusion that "these other drivers are at play and thus it's pointless to do anything about CO2". The number of missing steps required to get to that conclusion is...scary.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 12:07 PM
 
Nothing absolute here....


very likely
may account
almost certainly
appear to be
is also possible that they may have
difficult to predict
appear to have
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,