Why worry about global warming? (2)

[RickG]

If it was only regional effect then "global" warming makes no sense, because the temperatures are only measured regionally.

Understand that "global" warming means the entire global average, not regional. The Medieval warm period proxy's reflect only the northern hemisphere and more specifically Europe.

If not, then current "global" warming could be regional too. (if global = regional)

Not at all. For instance, NASA/GISS utilizes a global grid system of 8,000 grids. More here: Data.GISS: GISTEMP: Sources Documentation

Talk about agumentum ad populum.

What Chalnoth is referring to is Doran 2009, which is a poll of practicing climate scientists. The 97% level is an actual peer review study by the National Academy of Sciences Anderegg 2010) which is a review of all the peer review climate literature. So, no it's not a popularity contest, it is what the literature actually states.

There is nothing wrong with fossil industry. The supply is limited, so is fossil industry. Also you can't avoid flooding, it will happen sooner or later for one or another reason. It does not matter. See what happened in Japan after the big earthquake.

Most of the global economy is at or near sea level. Agricultural zones are migrating, what happens when those major zones migrate to areas of heavy population where commercial agriculture cannot be performed. Same thing with wildlife that are dependent upon specific ecosystems. Acidification of the oceans is already being observed which is affecting the bottom of the food chain. Little shelled critters, forams and plankton are increasingly unable to maintain stable shells. And much more.

 

[Upisoft]

You're confusing things. The part that was regional was the midieval warm period. And if you spent two seconds to look at the link, you'd see it directly disproves your claim that the Earth was warmer then: it absolutely wasn't.

Oh, I spend a lot of time actually reading things. They say in "North Atlantic" section: /quote/"A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period)."/endquote/

If the sea surface was 1 °C warmer that's a lot of water. &0% of planet surface is covered by water and if you think for a little while you'll understand why "global" temperature measured only on major land bodies is nor "global" enough.

Let's go back a moment. These aren't the general populace. These are experts who have dedicated their lives to understanding reality. They overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it. And you have the audacity to just disregard that without a shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous assertion? Preposterous.

Appeal to majority is still argumentum ad populum. It is also called consensus fallacy. It also does not matter that you select some group of people you think they have authority on the question. Argument of authority doesn't help as itself is a fallacy. You can't fix fallacy with another fallacy.

What's wrong is that they're putting out lots of money to prevent any political action to stop global warming.

And while you can't avoid some floods, having ocean levels rise by a full meter in the next century is going to cause a tremendous number of them.

And why this is my problem or problem at all for anyone. Hurricanes happen and people still live in Florida. Earthquakes happen and people still live in Japan. Active volcanoes happen and people still build their houses next to them. Nobody seems to care. Why should I?

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh, I spend a lot of time actually reading things. They say in "North Atlantic" section: /quote/"A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period)."/endquote/

If the sea surface was 1 °C warmer that's a lot of water. &0% of planet surface is covered by water and if you think for a little while you'll understand why "global" temperature measured only on major land bodies is nor "global" enough.

You posted a lot of unrelated links, but you never actually posted the evidence for this claim.

But regardless of that fact, this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. The Sargasso Sea is not 70% of the planet. The Sargasso Sea is a specific region in the Atlantic. A warming of 1C of a specific region in the Atlantic is not a warming of the entire ocean. It's a warming of a specific region in the Atlantic.

To see why this is an utterly wrong way of looking at things, I need only point out the ENSO, which frequently reaches similar magnitudes in its effect. All we need do (at least heuristically) to understand what's going on in the Sagasso Sea is that it is a much slower oscillation.

But it is nevertheless clear that our present warming has nothing whatsoever to do with such long timescale changes. The current changes are far, far too rapid for that.

Appeal to majority is still argumentum ad populum. It is also called consensus fallacy. It also does not matter that you select some group of people you think they have authority on the question. Argument of authority doesn't help as itself is a fallacy. You can't fix fallacy with another fallacy.

And yet, the fact of the matter is that scientific consensus is almost always correct. If you don't want to actually investigate for yourself (which you clearly don't), the only honest and responsible thing to do is leave it to the experts and pay attention to what they have to say. But you aren't doing that, and you certainly aren't honestly investigating the evidence for yourself. So clearly you're just putting your head in the sand and only paying attention to sources which reinforce your ridiculous preconceived notions. You proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt by making the obviously wrong (and easily verified) assertion that the MWP was warmer than the present-day, and then changing the subject when it was demonstrated to be false.

And why this is my problem or problem at all for anyone. Hurricanes happen and people still live in Florida. Earthquakes happen and people still live in Japan. Active volcanoes happen and people still build their houses next to them. Nobody seems to care. Why should I?

You don't think a lot of people dying is a problem?

 

[Upisoft]

Understand that "global" warming means the entire global average, not regional. The Medieval warm period proxy's reflect only the northern hemisphere and more specifically Europe.

The picture says "Northern hemisphere". That's already regional you know.
About fixing ad populum with another fallacy see the answer to Chalnoth.

Most of the global economy is at or near sea level.

You mean like city of Ephesus? When the river sedimentation moved the sea coast line about 1km away from the city it stopped to be that popular. The only thing left from the big city with 250,000 people is ruins. So, why you are concerned about something that now is at sea level, when you don't know where it will be 1 century after now, because of such natural processes as sedimentation, earthquakes, etc?

Acidification of the oceans is already being observed which is affecting the bottom of the food chain. Little shelled critters, forams and plankton are increasingly unable to maintain stable shells. And much more.

I don't have shell you know, why do I care what natural selection will do to marine shellfish? They will surely adapt to free the ecological niche to something more adapted than them.

 

[Upisoft]

You posted a lot of unrelated links, but you never actually posted the evidence for this claim.

That's how copy/paste from wikipedia works, all unnecessary links come with the text. And about evidence will see next.

But regardless of that fact, this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. The Sargasso Sea is not 70% of the planet. The Sargasso Sea is a specific region in the Atlantic. A warming of 1C of a specific region in the Atlantic is not a warming of the entire ocean. It's a warming of a specific region in the Atlantic.

Thanks for seeing and using my point of view about our discussion. The same reasoning is still valid when applied to the 8000 sources of temperature data used to collect "global" warming data. Earth surface is 510,072,000 square kilometers, or 63,759 squire kilometers per "grid". They represent the average temperature of such huge area by the temperatures measured in few points in that area (usually located near human settlements). So, the facts are we don't know if Earth is globally warming or not. We do know that a specific set of data for specific places show warming. Just like warming of one sea does not necessarily mean warming of the whole ocean.

You don't think a lot of people dying is a problem?

A lot of people are dying constantly regardless of the causes. Don't you think that the problem will be if they suddenly stop dying and Earth population suddenly explodes?

 

[RickG]

The picture says "Northern hemisphere". That's already regional you know.
About fixing ad populum with another fallacy see the answer to Chalnoth.

Which is exactly the point I was making. The Moeberg reconstruction (blue) are northern hemisphere proxy's. The red line is "global" instrumental records.


You mean like city of Ephesus? When the river sedimentation moved the sea coast line about 1km away from the city it stopped to be that popular. The only thing left from the big city with 250,000 people is ruins. So, why you are concerned about something that now is at sea level, when you don't know where it will be 1 century after now, because of such natural processes as sedimentation, earthquakes, etc?

You are focusing on small isolated spots. Most of the world's population and economy is at or near sea level. Sea level rise is already progressing faster than models have predicted. Low end estimates show a rise of 1 meter by 2100 and some estimates are as high as 3 to meters.

I don't have shell you know, why do I care what natural selection will do to marine shellfish? They will surely adapt to free the ecological niche to something more adapted than them.

A large core of the world's population is dependent upon the sea for their food and livelihood. The bottom of the food chain affect the entire food chain.

 

[RickG]

Thanks for seeing and using my point of view about our discussion. The same reasoning is still valid when applied to the 8000 sources of temperature data used to collect "global" warming data. Earth surface is 510,072,000 square kilometers, or 63,759 squire kilometers per "grid". They represent the average temperature of such huge area by the temperatures measured in few points in that area (usually located near human settlements). So, the facts are we don't know if Earth is globally warming or not. We do know that a specific set of data for specific places show warming. Just like warming of one sea does not necessarily mean warming of the whole ocean.

You did not source the NASA link I provided did you. It is more than 8,000 sources, it 8,000 grid boxes where multiple instrumental data points are collected in each grid box. It includes direct measurements from radoisonde, ship data, satellite dremata and station data. It is extremely thorough and updated monthly. For example:

Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI)

• Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
• Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
• Southern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
• Zonal annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent completed year

Source: NASA/GISS

 

[Jazer]

1. What is global warming?

Global warming is based on what they call the Green House Effect. This is where the Carbon Dioxide from Fossil fuel is returning to the atmosphere. For some of us warmer weather would be a reason to rejoice. Esp in a place like Alaska where sub zero weather is fairly common. The problem is that global warming will cause the Ice to melt. This gives us two problems, short term and long term. In the short term the water does not just melt and go into the ocean. There is a weather process the water goes though as a part of the cleansing process. This can give people more severe weather. For example places like Buffalo NY can get up to 24 inches of snow overnight. Now weather is causing problelms for Boston, New York and Baltimore. Not only the snow coming in from the West. But also they are getting more Huricanes coming in from the Alantic. Native Alaskans have had some of their costal villages destroyed. London has problems with high water and storm effect. Venice Italy has problems with flooding at high tide. Cities like New York and Miami are at sea level and can not handle a higher ocean level. A lot of Florida may go under water.

There is a 50 degree difference in the weather at the Equator compared to the Poles. This is what creates water and air currents. For example they may call this the trade winds. So a one degree difference anywhere can churn this up quite a bit because the whole planet has to balance out. Warm goes to cold with the laws of thermodynamics. Right now there is a situation with the King Crab starting to multiply and go into areas looking for food that they were not in before. With the warmer water that can cause quite a change. But King Crab are very deep, up to 300 feet and they are close to the bottom. So it is expensive to harvest them and the price is still $15 a pound in a lot of places. Also it is a scavanger and your not suppose to eat them. Like we are to avoid shell fish.

 

[Upisoft]

Which is exactly the point I was making. The Moeberg reconstruction (blue) are northern hemisphere proxy's. The red line is "global" instrumental records.

Yeah, "global" is correct. So you say the picture shows that regional temperatures correlate with "global" temperatures, is that correct?

You are focusing on small isolated spots.

The same as those who measure temperatures "globally" do.

Most of the world's population and economy is at or near sea level. Sea level rise is already progressing faster than models have predicted. Low end estimates show a rise of 1 meter by 2100 and some estimates are as high as 3 to meters.

They can move can't they? Do you think they will stay and slowly drown? The same as people of Ephesus.

A large core of the world's population is dependent upon the sea for their food and livelihood. The bottom of the food chain affect the entire food chain.

The sea is not going anywhere. Nor the sea food.

 

[Upisoft]

You did not source the NASA link I provided did you. It is more than 8,000 sources, it 8,000 grid boxes where multiple instrumental data points are collected in each grid box. It includes direct measurements from radoisonde, ship data, satellite dremata and station data. It is extremely thorough and updated monthly.

Still if you read carefully you'll find out they assign only one number by averaging the instrument data. So, if there is cooler(than usual) air in upper atmospheric layers no body will care.

 

[Upisoft]

Global warming is based on what they call the Green House Effect. This is where the Carbon Dioxide from Fossil fuel is returning to the atmosphere. For some of us warmer weather would be a reason to rejoice. Esp in a place like Alaska where sub zero weather is fairly common. The problem is that global warming will cause the Ice to melt. This gives us two problems, short term and long term. In the short term the water does not just melt and go into the ocean. There is a weather process the water goes though as a part of the cleansing process. This can give people more severe weather.

There was severe weather before we started burning fossil fuels. There was Ice Age. The temperatures during Jurassic period were much higher... so naturally we have quite moderate temperatures right now.

 

[RickG]

Yeah, "global" is correct. So you say the picture shows that regional temperatures correlate with "global" temperatures, is that correct?

No that is not what the graph shows. Again, the blue line is proxy data for the northern hemisphere only, and most of that is for Europe. That is regional. The red line is where instrumental data begins and it is global, not regional. The global average temperature on instruments is warmer than the proxy record of the past 1000 years. The Medieval warm period was not as warm or warmer than it is currently.


[/quote]The same as those who measure temperatures "globally" do.[/quote]

No, that is incorrect. Where are you getting this information?

The sea is not going anywhere. Nor the sea food.

Think again. Look at the peer review literature.

Negative effects to marine ecosystems: (Orr 2005, Fabry 2008, Kroeker 2010)
(Turley 2005), (Miles 2007), (Munday 2010), (Boyce 2010).

 

[RickG]

There was severe weather before we started burning fossil fuels. There was Ice Age. The temperatures during Jurassic period were much higher... so naturally we have quite moderate temperatures right now.

There wasn't 7 billion people on the planet then either.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's how copy/paste from wikipedia works, all unnecessary links come with the text. And about evidence will see next.

So, you copy and pasted without attribution? Nice plagiarism there.

Thanks for seeing and using my point of view about our discussion. The same reasoning is still valid when applied to the 8000 sources of temperature data used to collect "global" warming data. Earth surface is 510,072,000 square kilometers, or 63,759 squire kilometers per "grid". They represent the average temperature of such huge area by the temperatures measured in few points in that area (usually located near human settlements). So, the facts are we don't know if Earth is globally warming or not. We do know that a specific set of data for specific places show warming. Just like warming of one sea does not necessarily mean warming of the whole ocean.

That's just a nonsensical criticism. Back here in reality, it turns out that temperatures are strongly correlated over rather large distances. For example, when temperatures go up in Washington, D.C., they also tend to go up in NYC. These correlations mean that yes, you can get pretty accurate estimates of global temperatures based upon spotty temperature records.

And then there's also the satellite data, which genuinely do measure temperatures across the entire surface of the Earth. Of course, satellite measurements are themselves limited in some respects, but it is simply dishonest to say that they aren't genuine global averages.

But in the end, our estimates of global temperatures agree, to a high degree of accuracy. And if that isn't enough, we also have other proxies for temperature, such as the melt of glaciers and sea ice, which show strong trends that are clearly a result of warming.

A lot of people are dying constantly regardless of the causes. Don't you think that the problem will be if they suddenly stop dying and Earth population suddenly explodes?

So clearly it's perfectly fine to be a genocidal maniac, according to you. I mean, if people die anyway, why not just kill everybody?

 

[Jazer]

satellite measurements are themselves limited in some respects

I would NOT want to go back to before weather satellites.
It is amazing how accurate they can predict the weather now.

So clearly it's perfectly fine to be a genocidal maniac

There is no God but if there was a God then He is a genocidal maniac?
I think you lost me there somewhere. I am having trouble following your thought.

 

[Jazer]

The sea is not going anywhere. Nor the sea food.

There already is not enough food in the ocean to support the population we have. We do not even get the good fish in this country. They bid it off the chart in Asia. Even up to $500 for a pound. What we get I can assure you they do not want. There is a reason it cost up to $100 for a good meal in a resturant. Because of the price they pay for that food that they serve there. Well, I am not rich, but I assume it is good food that the rich people pay high prices for.

 

[Chalnoth]

I would NOT want to go back to before weather satellites.
It is amazing how accurate they can predict the weather now.

Well, these aren't weather satellites. The satellite measurements we use for global temperatures are a bit different. But the main difficulty is that they have a hard time measuring low temperatures properly.

There is no God but if there was a God then He is a genocidal maniac?
I think you lost me there somewhere. I am having trouble following your thought.

Um, wasn't talking about a god in that post. I was saying that the logical extension of Upisoft's reasoning is that genocide is perfectly fine.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If I worry my heart rate will increase, and that will lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Then I will worry even more. Depending on the condition of my heart this will either lead to an early death or just more pollution. Either way it looks bad for the worriers.

 

[Chalnoth]

If I worry my heart rate will increase, and that will lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Then I will worry even more. Depending on the condition of my heart this will either lead to an early death or just more pollution. Either way it looks bad for the worriers.

Well, no, not really. The CO2 your body releases comes from the food you eat, which ultimately comes from the atmosphere. So there's really not much net change in CO2 emission depending upon how you act (except for eating meat....meat production ends up emitting quite a bit of CO2, comparable to the amount released by transportation).

 

[RickG]

If I worry my heart rate will increase, and that will lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Then I will worry even more. Depending on the condition of my heart this will either lead to an early death or just more pollution. Either way it looks bad for the worriers.

No, that is just part of the carbon cycle. Increasing the rate at which you release CO2 also increases the rate at which you take it in. If it didn't you would soon expire because there would be a net imbalance.