Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I hope you can forgive me for not wanting to read all 162 posts you've made on this thread. As a shortcut to finding what you may have said on the topic of anthropocentric CO2 emissions I noted that points #4 and #5 concern carbon 12, carbon 13 and carbon 14. I searched this thread for your posts that contained either '12', '13', or '14', and didn't get any returns. Perhaps, as a start, you would be willing to critique those two points.

Again, here is the URL for my initial quote.
Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

I see I should have searched for c14, not just 14. You have talked about the topic, and I am now reading post 1452 and post 2462.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I hope you can forgive me for not wanting to read all 162 posts you've made on this thread. As a shortcut to finding what you may have said on the topic of anthropocentric CO2 emissions I noted that points #4 and #5 concern carbon 12, carbon 13 and carbon 14. I searched this thread for your posts that contained either '12', '13', or '14', and didn't get any returns. Perhaps, as a start, you would be willing to critique those two points.

Again, here is the URL for my initial quote.
Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

OK, here's three related C14 to get you started:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2010679

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2011154

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2038216

As my old university physics and geology text books used to say:
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

definition of AD HOMINEM:
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

While SkepticalScience.com is not a person (more a collective of persons), the fact that StuM criticized their arguments without providing any substantial rational I believe qualifies as an ad hominem reaction.

What you believe and the traditional definition of one of the classic fallacies of logic are not necessary the same.


I've popped in from time to time, but haven't followed the discussion. I agree with you that listening to carefully reasoned counterarguments can be very instructive.

If you had followed this thread more closely you would have seen numerous de-bunkings of the distortions and omissions apparent throughout the SS site and wouldm't need to see yet another "sustantial rational" [sic]

I am surprised that you find Skeptical Science partisan -- in a bad way. Of course they strongly hold a position. However, if you read their website for the quote that I posted you will see that most every statement they make has a link to supporting documents from recognized scientific sources, such as NOAA, NASA, various universities and scientific papers. To a scientific layman, such as myself, all these references are an encouragement that what is being said is backed by good scientific analysis.

If you look at one of the links in my previous post you will see a typical example of them cherry picking from those links. It is the standard modus operandi throughout that site and I have got tired of having to de-bunk their propaganda.

OK one more for you. Let's just take their first point.
"The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;"

Ignores a basic scientific principle: Correlation does not imply causation

The start in the growth in CO2 concentration according to ice core records coincides with end of the Little Ice Age. Did the industrial revolution cause the end of the LIA, was the industrial revolution a consequence of the warming as the earth came out of the LIA or are they independent developments. All three alternatives are equally valid interpretations but SS assumes the one that matches their agenda.

As started above, the start of CO2 is implied from the ice cores. There are numerous problems with accepting that as gospel, not least the length of time it takes for firn to solidify and trap the atmospheric gases which can circulate through the firn and mix with gases of different ages for several hundred years.

It also ignores the evidence of plant stomata (pointed out in a previous post) which shows a very different recent history. (And please don't bother to post the SS supposed counter to the stomata evidence - before you do read David Middleton's critique of their critique in Comment 2 )

Comparing the rate of increase of C02 with the rate of industrial emissions shows that CO2 levels (according to those same ice cores) increased far more than can be accounted for by those emissions in the early decades of the period. IIRC, I've already mentioned that point too earlier in this thread. That inconvenient fact is also overlooked by the SS claim. So even their confounding of correlation with causation falls apart. While there is a broad brush correlation when you smear the data over 250 years or so, when you look into the details, the correlation isn't there.

OK, enough - Just take it from me that quoting from SS will not earn you any points in this thread.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

Okay, I've read these two posts by StuM about Carbon 14 and anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere.

Oh boy!

Scanning that blog post, the first thing that hit me was the comparison graphs. A textbook example of how to lie with statistics. Look at the ranges of the Y Axes which have blatantly been cherry picked to show an apparent equal positive or negative trend in pairs of dataset lines.

Guess I'm not scientifically literate enough, but I fail to see a problem. The two y-axis are (presumably) correctly labeled, and the two series of data points make a useful point.

Then I reading it, I see that it deals with only one CO2 source and ignores any others.

Here's some homework for you.
How much CO2 is taken up by the oceans?
How long does the carbon in tha CO2 remain in the ocean
What is the C14 ratio in the ocean as a consequence of this this uptake and the other oceanic sources of CO2 such as volcanic vents etc.

If some of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of ocean outgassing due to increased ocean temperatures, what effect would that have on C14 ratios?

This discussion doesn't seem to be continued so I'm not sure why StuM asked all these questions, but at least some of them seem to be dealt with in SkepticalScience article I posted.

Originally Posted by StuM

Classic alarmist cherry picking of the start date and ignoring longer term data that shows there is nothing unusual about recent events.

NCDC/NOAA themselves tell us that 14C has been declining steadily over the last 40,000 years from a combination of changes in the earth's magnetic field, the release of 14C depleted CO2 from the deep ocean, and the coupling of atmospheric 14C-CO2 uptake by plants and old C release from soils that occurred during glacial retreat from 12ky ago to present.

Not sure how the trend of the last 40,000 years make a significant difference to the question of what is happening to the various carbon isotope ratios in the last few centuries. To the best of my limited understanding your comments don't present serious counter-arguments the conclusions presented by Skeptical Science.

See NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Hughen et al. Cariaco Basin Radiocarbon data





Interesting to notice the last uptick in C14 which appears to be around the time of the LIA

For what its worth the Little Ice Age occurred between 1300 and the late 1700s. Not sure if that is relevant to the current discussion?

[SailOar]

Thank you for going to the trouble of finding some of your previous posts. I had already found two of them and have made a response to those. The third one contained only a one-sentence statement, which was not very helpful for me to understand the scientific rationale for your point of view.

Originally Posted by StuM

If you look at one of the links in my previous post you will see a typical example of them cherry picking from those links. It is the standard modus operandi throughout that site and I have got tired of having to de-bunk their propaganda.

OK one more for you. Let's just take their first point.
"The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;"

Ignores a basic scientific principle: Correlation does not imply causation

My understanding for how the Skeptical Science matrix works was to examine a number of different anthropogenic CO2 questions, extract the limited information from each of those questions, and then look for a trend in the answers that could be extracted from each point. As the matrix showed, the only consistent pattern that could be found from all the data points is that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the a large portion of the recent spike in CO2 levels.

The start in the growth in CO2 concentration according to ice core records coincides with end of the Little Ice Age. Did the industrial revolution cause the end of the LIA, was the industrial revolution a consequence of the warming as the earth came out of the LIA or are they independent developments. All three alternatives are equally valid interpretations but SS assumes the one that matches their agenda.

As started above, the start of CO2 is implied from the ice cores. There are numerous problems with accepting that as gospel, not least the length of time it takes for firn to solidify and trap the atmospheric gases which can circulate through the firn and mix with gases of different ages for several hundred years.

I don't know if your concern is valid or not, but I'm not sure if that is germane to this discussion. Antarctic ice core data goes back as far as 800,000 years, so depending on what you are researching, +/- 100 years may not be too important.

It also ignores the evidence of plant stomata (pointed out in a previous post) which shows a very different recent history. (And please don't bother to post the SS supposed counter to the stomata evidence - before you do read David Middleton's critique of their critique in Comment 2 )

Comparing the rate of increase of C02 with the rate of industrial emissions shows that CO2 levels (according to those same ice cores) increased far more than can be accounted for by those emissions in the early decades of the period. IIRC, I've already mentioned that point too earlier in this thread. That inconvenient fact is also overlooked by the SS claim. So even their confounding of correlation with causation falls apart. While there is a broad brush correlation when you smear the data over 250 years or so, when you look into the details, the correlation isn't there.

OK, enough - Just take it from me that quoting from SS will not earn you any points in this thread.

I'm not trying to earn points. But I am looking for conclusions that a layman can understand, which has been backed by reputable scientific research. You've made a number of assertions, some of which I sort of understand, and some of which I don't understand at all. The few references you've given are pretty opaque to me, and you have not responded to points #4 and #5 in any sort of clear, methodical way. Of course, you are not obliged to do so, but my current opinion is that maybe you haven't thought about them as much as you might.

This is embarrassing to say, now that I've jumped into a complex conversation, but my access to the Internet is very sporadic, and I doubt that I can either read, much less respond to any comments you might make for a few days or even weeks.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Guess I'm not scientifically literate enough, but I fail to see a problem. The two y-axis are (presumably) correctly labeled, and the two series of data points make a useful point.

Get a copy of How To Lie With Charts: Second Edition: Gerald Everett Jones: 9781419651434: Amazon.com: Books

You will learn just how egregiously wrong it is to do what that graph does with the axes.

This discussion doesn't seem to be continued so I'm not sure why StuM asked all these questions, but at least some of them seem to be dealt with in SkepticalScience article I posted.

It was a re-iteration of the point made earlier about C14 ratios in CO2 long dissolved sea water and how outgassed CO2 will have a similar effect to the supposed "fossil fuel fingerprint" of C14 ratios

Not sure how the trend of the last 40,000 years make a significant difference to the question of what is happening to the various carbon isotope ratios in the last few centuries. To the best of my limited understanding your comments don't present serious counter-arguments the conclusions presented by Skeptical Science.

The fact that:

1. the overall trend in declining C14 ratio since the end of the LIA is indistinguishable from the trend over the last 40,000 years and
2. The record over the last 40,000 years shows many much large variations in the C14 ratio that the decrease since the LIA
both put the lie to the claim that the current decrease MUST be from burning fossil fuels.

For what its worth the Little Ice Age occurred between 1300 and the late 1700s. Not sure if that is relevant to the current discussion?

We are all well aware of the dates of LIA, that it was the coldest period in the entire Holocene and that the planet experience an overall warming between then and the end of the 20th Century.

It's relevance to the current discussion is that many alarmists imply that the LIA was the "natural" climate for the planet despite it being the coldest period in the last 10 thousand years or so and that we should be trying to get back to it. (And yes, SS have a page about post LIA warming - don't bother posting it, I really don't feel like devoting my time to the fisking it deserves)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I don't know if your concern is valid or not, but I'm not sure if that is germane to this discussion. Antarctic ice core data goes back as far as 800,000 years, so depending on what you are researching, +/- 100 years may not be too important.

On the contrary +/- 100 years is critical to the discussion. If you "smear data" over long periods, all meaningful short term data disappears. A monthly or annual average temperature tells you nothing about how variable daily or weekly temperatures are.

Similarly if you average the last 200 years of warming, you would just get a single monotonic temperature showing no change over the period. You do not see the sharp rises in the periods 1910-1945 and 1975-2000 nor the drops in temperature over 1880-1910 and 1945-1975.

That is why, when you see long temperature reconstructions which use proxies with a resolution on centennial scales, they cannot tell you whether there were sharp 20-30 year rises and falls in temperature comparable to the period of the instrumental record which has caused so much concern to the alarmists.

I'm not trying to earn points. But I am looking for conclusions that a layman can understand, which has been backed by reputable scientific research. You've made a number of assertions, some of which I sort of understand, and some of which I don't understand at all. The few references you've given are pretty opaque to me, and you have not responded to points #4 and #5 in any sort of clear, methodical way. Of course, you are not obliged to do so, but my current opinion is that maybe you haven't thought about them as much as you might.

I thought that I'd covered point #4, C14 fairly comprehensively. There argument that it must be anthropogenic ignores the fact that the rate of decline is not distinguishable from any other period in the past 40,000 years when it wasn't anthropogenic and I also pointed out that one of their own links (from NOAA/NASA) says specifically that ocean outgassing is one factor in that decline - directly contradicting their claim of " not oceanic outgassing"

I really can't be bothered with going any further into de-bunking their claims yet again.

This is embarrassing to say, now that I've jumped into a complex conversation, but my access to the Internet is very sporadic, and I doubt that I can either read, much less respond to any comments you might make for a few days or even weeks.

Feel free to come back when you can. Unfortunately, you may have to skim and miss many of the detailed posts which do set out clear, methodical, scientifically based arguments (as you have apparently missed many of them to date)

[Kenomac]

Yesterday it was -8 degrees F without the wind chill factored in, today it was 50 degrees F. If the present rate of warming here in Whoville continues, it will be 356 degrees F on Sunday.

[StuM]

Just think, if it wasn't for all that dreaded globull warming from durdy carbon. it would have only gone from -9 to 49.

Oh, noes!

[chala]

There are Cruisers and Cruisers, some minds reefs (danger), other, which does not want to scare the kids, looks the other way and try their luck. That the price that you have to pay for comfort, they claim when they face a damaged environment. What price will their kids have to pay for the reckless behaviour of their parents?
I would hate to sail with 2 beers entertainers that would write more than 2500 posts to convince them self that the reef they have just hit is not supposed to exist.
They are Cruisers that does care about the environment.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by chala

There are Cruisers and Cruisers, some minds reefs (danger), other, which does not want to scare the kids, looks the other way and try their luck. That the price that you have to pay for comfort, they claim when they face a damaged environment. What price will their kids have to pay for the reckless behaviour of their parents?
I would hate to sail with 2 beers entertainers that would write more than 2500 posts to convince them self that the reef they have just hit is not supposed to exist.
They are Cruisers that does care about the environment.

i think you are getting it all wrong.
claiming or denying that global warming is men made (or even exists) and caring to conserve the environment (that we want to enjoy cruising) are two totally different things.
and despite the derails, this thread is somehow supposed to be about how the advance in technology counteracts the effects of global warming on a 20year scale.

that's climate.

not the plastic graveyard in the pacific.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by chala:
There are Cruisers and Cruisers, some minds reefs (danger), other, which does not want to scare the kids, looks the other way and try their luck. That the price that you have to pay for comfort, they claim when they face a damaged environment. What price will their kids have to pay for the reckless behaviour of their parents?
I would hate to sail with 2 beers entertainers that would write more than 2500 posts to convince them self that the reef they have just hit is not supposed to exist.
They are Cruisers that does care about the environment.

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i think you are getting it all wrong.
claiming or denying that global warming is men made (or even exists) and caring to conserve the environment (that we want to enjoy cruising) are two totally different things.
and despite the derails, this thread is somehow supposed to be about how the advance in technology counteracts the effects of global warming on a 20year scale.

that's climate.

not the plastic graveyard in the pacific.

Good point, Simon. In fact, I would bet that cruisers as a group are more aware and caring about the environment than many, especially those who are full-time cruisers and/or liveaboards. If chala has been following the thread consistently, he is hopefully aware of all the various scientific & non-scientific factors that influence peoples' beliefs about CC, and I have yet to read anyone's posts that suggest a lack of caring or anything other than good intentions.

In fact, the opposite is true. Healthy debate that challenges conventional assumptions improves rather than hinders the chances of a viable solution. Such debate is educational as opposed to merely validating of mainstream views. Absent an "agenda," I just don't see how the manner in which somebody accepts, rejects, or questions the current state of CC science has anything to do with their desire to care for the environment. This is at best a red herring, and at worst an attempt to marginalize contrarian thinking with simplistic labels & stereotypes.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i think you are getting it all wrong.
claiming or denying that global warming is men made (or even exists) and caring to conserve the environment (that we want to enjoy cruising) are two totally different things.
and despite the derails, this thread is somehow supposed to be about how the advance in technology counteracts the effects of global warming on a 20year scale.

that's climate.

not the plastic graveyard in the pacific.

“more energy than it cost” Climate Change Predictions

Are you that type off fool that believe that more energy at a cheaper cost will be beneficial to the environment?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by chala

“more energy than it cost” Climate Change Predictions

Are you that type off fool that believe that more energy at a cheaper cost will be beneficial to the environment?

Context please I'm lost with that comment .
I bet you believe everything the IPCC says as well.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Exile

Healthy debate that challenges conventional assumptions improves rather than hinders the chances of a viable solution. Such debate is educational as opposed to merely validating of mainstream views.

Do not fool your self this thread utter rubbish.