Why worry about global warming?

[dad]

What? I never said there was catastrophic warming over the past 15 years. I don't think anybody supports that position. If that is your bar for global warming being something to worry about, then, well, you're incredibly short-sighted.

The point I've been making is that our more recent warming estimates that are still early enough to be measurable, the IPCC reports released in 2000, have largely underestimated the effects of warming in the interim. And the current estimates of warming over this century are quite dire, even though we haven't taken into account a number of positive feedback mechanisms that could completely run our climate off the rails.

I find it particularly laughable that you somehow think action to mitigate climate change will hurt poor people, when it is, in reality, poor people who will suffer the most from climate change, for the simple reason that they will have less resources to use to adjust to changes in climate. Because of this, one of the primary effects of climate change is going to be mass starvation as certain rather large areas of the globe dramatically reduce their food output (poorer nations in places like Africa will be particularly hard-hit).

Seems to me that a planet recovering from an ice age would tend to accelerate warming a bit over time perhaps..? Man is adaptable, we can move to higher or lower areas etc. Look at the horn of Africa where the famine is, I would think sin and war and etc are more to blame for suffering..?

The whole world will undergo complete changes, and it has nothing to do with so called global warming. The basis for the long term trends is horsedung. The imaginary old ages, and etc....utter nonsense. Relax people. Yes the world is changing....the sky ain't falling yet.

 

[Chalnoth]

Seems to me that a planet recovering from an ice age would tend to accelerate warming a bit over time perhaps..?

Um, the last ice age was some 10,000 years ago. There isn't going to suddenly be snap-warming as a result of ice age recovery 10,000 years after the end of an ice age.

Man is adaptable, we can move to higher or lower areas etc. Look at the horn of Africa where the famine is, I would think sin and war and etc are more to blame for suffering..?

A lot of adaptation comes from lots and lots of people dying. Do I think that global warming will make humanity go extinct? No. But what I do worry about is the mass human suffering it will cause. And yes, if we keep on our current trajectory, the suffering caused by AGW will very much exceed the suffering caused by war, at least the wars that have occurred so far (though possibly not the worst of diseases). And the disgusting thing is that it is entirely preventable.

The whole world will undergo complete changes, and it has nothing to do with so called global warming. The basis for the long term trends is horsedung. The imaginary old ages, and etc....utter nonsense. Relax people. Yes the world is changing....the sky ain't falling yet.

Yes, well, your imagination isn't a proper substitute for actual science.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

IPCC reports released in 2000, have largely underestimated the effects of warming

The graph goes to 2010. The IPCC's predictions are over estimates.

I will not read a scientific paper because you say I should, there's too many out there to play that game, I will read what points you have to make here.

How much thermal forcing are you anticipating by 2100?

Look at the horn of Africa where the famine is, I would think sin and war and etc are more to blame for suffering..?

War yes, but sin? Was America especially sinful in the 1930's when the dust bowl happened?

Today it's the horn of Africa that's in trouble. Lets be generous because tomorrow it might be us.

 

[Chalnoth]

The graph goes to 2010. The IPCC's predictions are over estimates.

*sigh*

You're really good at not paying attention. Those were based on the first IPCC reports, released back in 1990. There have been three updates since then, and we have learned much more.

Anyway, I was pretty confident that that posting was dishonest. And now I've finally taken the time to prove it. Here is the IPCC report from 1990 that discusses the estimates of future climate change:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_05.pdf

Their "best guess" for total warming by 2030 in the 'business as usual' scenario is 1.8C, not 2C, with a range from 1.3C to 2.7C (this is described in table 5.1). So if we take the rest of the argument listed here:
Clive Best » Blog Archive » 1990 IPCC predictions confront the data

...then we get an expected warming from 1990 to 2030 of 0.9C. Currently, the Earth has warmed by about 0.35-0.4C since then. This may be an overestimate, but it is going to be a very slight one, with actual 1990-2030 warming looking to be on target at 0.7C-0.8C, higher if warming accelerates (which it is likely to).

I will not read a scientific paper because you say I should, there's too many out there to play that game, I will read what points you have to make here.

How much thermal forcing are you anticipating by 2100?

Thermal forcing? I'll just go by the most recent IPCC estimates which put the total temperature change by 2100 at around 3.2C warmer than today if emissions are not curbed.

Thermal forcing is different from temperature change, by the way, but addressing thermal forcing would require a much more detailed discussion that I don't think is relevant.

 

[Jazer]

Was America especially sinful in the 1930's when the dust bowl happened?

They did not have the technology to bring the water up from under the ground.

 

[Chalnoth]

They did not have the technology to bring the water up from under the ground.

Pretty sure they had wells at that time. It's more irrigation that is at issue. But then, irrigation only gets you so far in a drought.

Anyway, what is happening right now in the the southern midwest (centered around Texas) is getting to be quite nasty:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/palmer.gif

 

[dad]

Um, the last ice age was some 10,000 years ago. There isn't going to suddenly be snap-warming as a result of ice age recovery 10,000 years after the end of an ice age.

Um..no, in real time it was maybe a bit over 4000 years ago most likely.

A lot of adaptation comes from lots and lots of people dying. Do I think that global warming will make humanity go extinct? No. But what I do worry about is the mass human suffering it will cause.

Well, I don't. Real causes would be something we would best concern ourselves with.

And yes, if we keep on our current trajectory, the suffering caused by AGW will very much exceed the suffering caused by war, at least the wars that have occurred so far (though possibly not the worst of diseases). And the disgusting thing is that it is entirely preventable.

Nonsense, if your so called trajectory started in some dreamland same state past. The trend of warming seems clear, and I suspect man contributes to that also. But man is a SMALL player.

Yes, well, your imagination isn't a proper substitute for actual science.

Then act like it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Um..no, in real time it was maybe a bit over 4000 years ago most likely.

As completely and utterly wrong as that is, it doesn't help your case any.

 

[[serious]]

Um..no, in real time it was maybe a bit over 4000 years ago most likely.

No, it wasn't

 

[Chalnoth]

No, it wasn't

Just on the off chance you weren't sure, he's citing that number because that's when he believed the global flood happened (using Ussher's chronology), at which time there was some sort of split between the spiritual and physical, and no observations before that time can be taken seriously as a result.

 

[Delphiki]

What you need to learn about dad is that he believes that the state of the universe (the physical laws ads such) changed through time and through space -- conveniently and "coincidentally" the state of universal physics are always bent in the right times and places specifically to support his argument.... But only his. The universe doesn't bend at will for anyone else but dad. I'm not trying to be funny, he'll even admit to this.

This is me trying to be funny about it...
Here's why I stopped "discussing" with him. His arguments typically go as follows:
Player 1: Blah blah, describing a natural process
dad: That's a bunch of fairy tales!
Player 1: No, see, here's the evidence...
dad: That is not evidence. You weren't even there!
Player 1: We don't have to be, the findings are still consistent with the natural process that occurred X million years ago or X million light years away.
dad: More fairy tales!
Player 1: No, see, radio active decay, redshift, geological evidence, etc....
dad: Different state! Trump card! Derp.

 

[dad]

No, it wasn't

Oh yes it likely was. Your site brings out various retreats of ice...whoopee do. That is mostly fact. It tosses out some silly dates with no basis, which no intelligent person would accept. That part is the false science part.

In fact, kids, here is a test, so you can see right away what is so called science.. If it tosses out dates older than 6000 years it IS NOT REAL SCIENCE, and of course is belief. That is what has been forced on schools...

 

[dad]

What you need to learn about dad is that he believes that the state of the universe (the physical laws ads such) changed through time and through space --

No. Actually our present earth zone laws would likely not have existed at all as is.

If all we were talking about was some mere change IN laws, we would be able to know.

conveniently and "coincidentally" the state of universal physics are always bent in the right times and places specifically to support his argument....

All you do is bend the unknown to fit with godless concepts and under your nose laws. Let's all stick to what is actually known, when it is supposed to be science. Honest adults should get this.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Chalnoth,

From the site you quoted

Conclusions
Following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing and have actually fallen slightly. The only IPCC prediction which remains consistent with the current data is the lower prediction of a 0.7 degree rise from 1990 to 2030. The “Best” IPCC estimate and the higher 1.5 degree rise are ruled out by the data.

Sorry about the underlining it will not go away

A temperature rise of 3.4 degrees will need about 10+++Watts per square meter. So that's about three doublings of CO2 levels using your 3.6 Watts per square meter per doubling figure.

3.4 degrees will have the effect of 35 cm(ish) sea level rise. A small problem only for Venice.

However this cataclisim is ruled out by the site you told me to go to. See above. "ruled out by the data."

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Posted by Dad,

All you do is bend the unknown to fit with godless concepts and under your nose laws. Let's all stick to what is actually known, when it is supposed to be science. Honest adults should get this.

When we look at the sky we can see stars far away. By measuring how they seem to move from one position to another and back between the time when we are at right angles between the star, us and the sun and the position 6 months later we can measure their distance. Very few stars are within 6000 light years of us. The universe is lots older than you want it to be.

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth,

From the site you quoted



Sorry about the underlining it will not go away

A temperature rise of 3.4 degrees will need about 10+++Watts per square meter. So that's about three doublings of CO2 levels using your 3.6 Watts per square meter per doubling figure.

Um, as I said, this is a more subtle discussion. You can't go by the forcing from CO2 alone. The climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is the temperature change you get after all of the fast feedbacks have been taken into account. These include atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc. When you add these together, they multiply the effect of a doubling of CO2 by a factor of a few, which is where the ~3C per doubling of CO2 comes from.

Here's a more detailed explanation of the effect of CO2 on climate:
RealClimate: The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

3.4 degrees will have the effect of 35 cm(ish) sea level rise. A small problem only for Venice.

What is this based upon? Why?

However this cataclisim is ruled out by the site you told me to go to. See above. "ruled out by the data."

I'm really not sure what site you are talking about. Because if you are referring to the site from which I suspect that graph you posted came from, I don't think that site is in any way credible. I was merely trying to find the source for the graph you posted, something you utterly failed to do.

 

[dad]

Posted by Dad,

When we look at the sky we can see stars far away. By measuring how they seem to move from one position to another and back between the time when we are at right angles between the star, us and the sun and the position 6 months later we can measure their distance. Very few stars are within 6000 light years of us. The universe is lots older than you want it to be.

No, actually. That argument is dead. Firstly light and laws would have needed to be the same in the past, we don't know that. Next, earth space would have to represent far far space, and that is not known. Therefore distances are out. What we have is apparent distances. (If space is the same all the way out and forces etc, then it is so far). Either way, you do not know what you claim or thought you did.

 

[Mikecpking]

No, actually. That argument is dead. Firstly light and laws would have needed to be the same in the past, we don't know that. Next, earth space would have to represent far far space, and that is not known. Therefore distances are out. What we have is apparent distances. (If space is the same all the way out and forces etc, then it is so far). Either way, you do not know what you claim or thought you did.

Sorry, but the fact that light and gravity act the same throughout the universe is proven through gravitational lensing. You have to change your argument!

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dad]

Sorry, but the fact that light and gravity act the same throughout the universe is proven through gravitational lensing. You have to change your argument!

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, that isn't known. Something acts, and they attribute gravity as the cause. As for light, we face the issue of time. And space. How you think you apply these far away is the issue. Belief is the answer...that is all you work on.

 

[Mikecpking]

No, that isn't known. Something acts, and they attribute gravity as the cause. As for light, we face the issue of time. And space. How you think you apply these far away is the issue. Belief is the answer...that is all you work on.

It isn't belief, its what is observed.

Its your own belief that is questionable. Because observation of how gravity interacts with the passage of light verifies that the universe has the same space/time properties throughout and through history over billions of light years. If you have some other hypothesis with evidence to the contrary, then please get it peer reviewed and I am sure you could become very famous.