Reminds me of this:
Reminds me of this:
Mike Flynn, sorry if you are going to dismiss any material that contradicts your perspective (especially when it is the work of genuine experts – such as David Archer or the IPCC), then it is perhaps unsurprising that you end up having some rather odd ideas (such as there being a plausible risk of CO2 falling to dangerous levels) and cannot be disabused of them.
Your fundamental lack of understanding is demonstrated by your question:
“So which do think is likely to prove more dangerous? Increasing the CO2 level by 100%, or decreasing it by the same amount?”
The radiative forcing due to CO2 is logarithmic in the concentration, so obviously the answer would be a 100% decrease, but then the only way to get a 100% decrease would be to take ALL of the carbon out of the atmosphere AND the oceans (as otherwise Henry’s law would just replenish it again from the ocean). It would also mean taking all the carbon out of the biosphere – which would be bad (duh!). HOWEVER, there is no way that is going to happen. Increasing atmospheric CO2 on the other hand is pretty straightforward and is what we are doing at the moment. In other words it is a silly (or perhaps disingenuous – am going to assume silly) question as you are comparing something that will happen with something that is essentially impossible.
Now if you were to ask which would be worse, doubling CO2 or halving it, my first estimate would be that they would be about equally bad, as it is the CHANGE that is the problem, not the temperature itself. This is because our civilization is rather heavily adapted to the pre-industrial climate (especially agriculture), and current population levels mean we can’t just move somewhere else with a more pleasant climate.
However it is clear that you are not really interested in the answers to your questions as you have just rudely dismissed the answers so far (if you think “We are just supposed your believe your assurances, are we? Or do you have some actual science to back up your your hopeful assumptions?” is not rude, then you were pretty badly brought up; if you want people to be polite to you, don’t be rude to them first).
/sarc on
rhhardin,
Next you’ll be telling us that scientists should be curious. They don’t need curiosity – just obedience!
/sarc off
“Obama has set an predictably bad lead on this.”
The great uniter has in so many ways become the great divider. With hard to believe cynicism especially given his first campaign, he purposely inflames both sides as a means to shoring up his base. It’s a profoundly narcissistic, scorched earth approach that has weakened us as a country. The first black President is personally responsible for setting race relations back 50 years.
(aka pokerguy)
Duarte’s concern about environmentalism capturing social science is the same problem as with physical climate science. Environmentalism is a massive ideological movement, one that has gained political power steadily for the last sixty years. Climate and the attack on fire is its high water mark (so far). It has captured both the scientists and the governments. But I think it has finally overeached because what it wants cannot be done.
“How the Left is Killing Free Speech”
The good news is, in the long run it won’t work.
I think the same. Happily we’re nowhere near all.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.
If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected
I think we have lost what Popper taught us!
Jim D-
Simple quesion—
What reliable information is there that leads you to conclude that any warming that occurs will lead to a negative change in conditions for the USA or the world overall?
Judith
Would you consider writing a post reviewing what reliable information leads science to conclude that AGW will result in a worsening of environmental conditions for the USA or the world overall?
Kind of like someone’s 2.7 climate sensitivity guess.
Yes, that’s what they told us and we are still waiting.
The BIGGER AND MORE FREQUENT EL NINOS have been due since 1998.
Gary writes- “It’s very similar to the libertarian/progressive deconstruction of sexual morality on college campuses.”
Wrong
Your beliefs about how people should behave is solely based on your cultural perspective. (religion)
Views about climate science will ultimately be determined by a better understanding of how the system operates.
PART TWO
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below I list my low average solar parameters criteria which I think will result in secondary effects being exerted upon the climatic system.
My biggest hurdle I think is not if these low average solar parameters would exert an influence upon the climate but rather will they be reached and if reached for how long a period of time?
I think each of the items I list , both primary and secondary effects due to solar variability if reached are more then enough to bring the global temperatures down by at least .5c in the coming years.
Even a .15 % decrease from just solar irradiance alone is going to bring the average global temperature down by .2c or so all other things being equal. That is 40% of the .5c drop I think can be attained. Never mind the contribution from everything else that is mentioned.
What I am going to do is look into research on sun like stars to try to get some sort of a gage as to how much possible variation might be inherent with the total solar irradiance of the sun. That said we know EUV light varies by much greater amounts, and within the spectrum of total solar irradiance some of it is in anti phase which mask total variability within the spectrum. It makes the total irradiance variation seem less then it is.
I also think the .1% variation that is so acceptable for TSI is on flimsy ground in that measurements for this item are not consistent and the history of measuring this item with instrumentation is just to short to draw these conclusions not to mention I know some sun like stars (which I am going to look into more) have much greater variability of .1%.
I think Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate regardless if , and that is my hurdle IF the solar variability is great enough in magnitude and duration of time. Sometimes solar variability acting in concert with factors setting the long term climatic trend while at other times acting in opposition.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Secondary Effects With Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity. A Brief Overview.
A Greater Meridional Atmospheric Circulation- due to less UV Light Lower Ozone in Lower Stratosphere.
Increase In Low Clouds- due to an increase in Galactic Cosmic Rays.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover- associated with a Meridional Atmospheric Circulation/an Increase In Clouds.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover probably resulting over time to a more Zonal Atmospheric Circulation. This Circulation increasing the Aridity over the Ice Sheets eventually. Dust probably increasing into the atmosphere over time.
Increase in Volcanic Activity – Since 1600 AD, data shows 85 % approximately of all major Volcanic eruptions have been associated with Prolonged Solar Minimum Conditions. Data from the Space and Science Center headed by Dr. Casey.
Volcanic Activity -acting as a cooling agent for the climate,(SO2) and enhancing Aerosols possibly aiding in greater Cloud formation.
Decrease In Ocean Heat Content/Sea Surface Temperature -due to a decline in Visible Light and Near UV light.
This in turn should diminish the Greenhouse Gas Effect over time, while promoting a slow drying out of the atmosphere over time. This may be part of the reason why Aridity is very common with glacial periods.
In addition sea surface temperature distribution changes should come about ,which probably results in different oceanic current patterns.
If this value of science is to be protected, evidence must be able to challenge currently held views. This requirement creates certain demands for the structure of how other values (whether ethical, social, political, or cognitive) can play a role in science.
Her viewpoint is somewhat poisoned by her politics.
Science is the known body of facts. Scientists seek to increase the known body of facts (unless you a global warmer and they tend to work in the opposite direction).
Saying values affect facts is a sign of extreme bias, or of mental illness or defect. The fact that global warming alarmists think values affect science and science can be used as a political tool indicate there is something wrong with their understanding or science – or something is wrong with them.
Well I thought the AR5 WG2 did a reasonable job of this, although the way the media portrayed this and policy makers continue to portray this is very different
Well, yeah.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/science/maligned-study-on-gay-marriage-is-shaking-trust.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2
Critics said the intense competition by graduate students to be published in prestigious journals, weak oversight by academic advisers and the rush by journals to publish studies that will attract attention too often led to sloppy and even unethical research methods. The now disputed study was covered by The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others.
“You don’t get a faculty position at Princeton by publishing something in the Journal Nobody-Ever-Heard-Of,” Dr. Oransky said. Is being lead author on a big study published in Science “enough to get a position in a prestigious university?” he asked, then answered: “They don’t care how well you taught. They don’t care about your peer reviews. They don’t care about your collegiality. They care about how many papers you publish in major journals.”
Science has lost integrity. Without integrity the only science that makes sense is hard science that improves processes (this can be tested in a lab).
Without integrity any science that can’t be immediately and objectively tested is paid storytelling.