'We've Got Climate Change'
The world is full of chicken littles. Apparantly it is time for some more propaganda and hype building like this
Now who said?
Let's go and find the fallacies in those articles.
Not to say that you have your mind made up before you even look...or anything like that.
Well, it took about four years to have that mind made up. Retrieving everything that has been investigated about paleo climate. After such a period you loose your sensitivity to those chicken little stories. Note that the climate upheaval of 5-8 degrees in the next few decades has been reduced to about a degree or so.
It's just a long string of fallacies based on a oversimplified perception.
I have stated elsewhere, which elements could be far more likely causes for a possible human influence on AGW. CO2 is only a very limited factor with little influence.
That was me.
You are proving my point in microcosm you know. Someone posts rational analysis of scientific studies, and you respond with "chicken little". There was no hype, but you respond with counter-hype anyway.
There is a lot of proof of short term warming in the past ten years. The overall trend of the last century is a slight warming with distinct cooling periods in between.
We know that carbon dioxide is a relative weak (actually the weakest) greenhouse gas. We know from clean clinical calculations that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere is only giving a 0,67 degree response in the temperature.
However, From the ice ages we percieve a huge temperature rise accompagnied by a slight increase in CO2 at the end of alledged glacial and stadial periods. And of course Venus is the clear example of a lot of Carbon dioxide combined with warming.
So the fallacy here is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Notice that all the warming reports invariable point to CO2 as the cause. There is not a single doubt about it yet it is wrong. Venus is not a story of Greenhouse gas. The signals of the ice age have a different cause, carbon dioxide increrase is only a result and not a cause.
There are numerous possible antropogenic causes if we insist on being capable on influencing the climate (repeating myself: haze, soot, aircraft contrails, reforestation, urbanisation -with a definite decrease of albedo). Now we are going to spend billions on something harmless, whilst the real cause remains uncertain. Moreover as of 1940 the sun has been most active since 1000 years and the el ninas are rather strong as well.
Yet al we read is the equvalent of: the sky is falling down, we must stop eating eggs or whatever. The relation is about the same.
You seem to think that any study about climate change must incorporate the entirety of a climatological model, and cover the entire geological record. Some papers just look at part of the puzzle, and add a part to our knowledge base. The conclusion that species have a poleward or increasing altitude migration is just another piece of a puzzle. It does not claim to be evidence of falling sky. While people are saying they have a small piece of evidence concerning global climate mechanisms, you are hearing "The sky is falling!". You seem to have chicken little in your ears.
I guess we finally have our discussion.
Yes, for sure a constant bombardement of global warming hype for about ten years or so is really not good for objective considerations. Believe me, it's not stronger anywhere but here in Holland. There have been times it was totally inpossible to tune in on a radio or television and not being confronted with CL talk within the hour. It's still delicate. Kyoto is a Dutch invention So the Dutch will make sure it is true.
But it isn't. Plenty of proof. And that's objective, not a reaction on the CL hype.
One more thing.
A hidden ad hominem. Too bad. It seems to be the main line of defense of the AGW propaganda , ad hominems , And it is very saddening: "So you are skeptic of AGW, so you are against the environment, So you're an opulent minimalist or microcosmolist. You're a crook".
You think I'm exagarating? Check out this letter:
Back to some real science about Global Warming:
I wonder in what category AGW will fall:
a: Science? OK, we had an hypothesis about global warming. We made predictions and the tests failed repeatedly. Hence the hypothesis is not valid, we need another hypothesis.
b: Politics? Never mind about the tests. It's irrelevant. We need global warming for the industries to switch to other forms of energy especially nuclear power, for the nations to unite, for the third world to help them along etc, etc. Nice and nobel prospects but using a wrong cause.
c: Religion? And yet, nothing can change my believe in Global warming. No-one will ever refute it. Beware if you attack my believe.
I think you completely misinterpreted my comment. By, "You are proving my point in microcosm..." I was simply stating that in this small case, you are demonstrating over-reation to reports of possible evidence relating to global warming. I have no idea what a "microcosmolist" is. You saw the word "microcosm" and became irrational. You didn't bother to comprehend the sentence it was in. Your knee-jerk reaction to this comment again shows that, whichever side is right, there are many on the "no-AGW" side who have become emotional to the point of ignoring the debate. It is their ranting I hear, their hype that pervades, not that of the proponents of the existance of AGW. Ten years ago it was the opposite. Now though, one is much more likely to here unfounded anti-AGW hype than pro.
A little world; a miniature universe. Hence, man, as a supposed epitome of the exterior universe or great world
Interpretation: You, Andre, just love your own small world and can't understand that global warming is something huge, that calls for a marcocosmic vision, that you lack.
Yes I like to invent words, the one I'm most proud of is "geologossip".
This is how the ad hominem department (a.k.a ministery of thruth - George Orwell 1984) works:
Now where are the tar and the feathers. Lets lynch these guys.
So tell us about paleo climates Andre, and how they are relevant to the Holocene!
As I think I said elsewhere, the economics of many a global warming article can be questionable (personal view), but let's have a discussion on the science shall we? Why not propose a protocol for such a discussion, one that avoids the ad homs (IMHO Njorl is just about the last PF member to engage in such) and allows the data and the science to be presented concisely, the key points identified, and a decent debate to occur?
*Separately* perhaps we could discuss risk mitigation, when dealing with barely understood, (possibly) smouldering risks that have (potentially) horrendous impacts (I might propose a protocol for that).
Tell about palaeo climates? Sure. I have done that before. If you google (when will this verb make it to the Webster?) with combinations of obvious terms as "ice age", "Pleistocene", "not understood", "mystery" you get lots of hits, surprisingly enough, many of my futile attemps on the first page.
Anyway, it's a long and complicated macrocosmic story in which it is becoming clear that the Earth has just started to enter into a chaotic behaviour phase, whereas Venus has ended that phase about half a billion years ago. This phase is concealed mainly as rapid and erratic climate changes in the past million years, the second half of the Pleistocene. Obviously the hypothesis is highly "counter intuitive" but if endorsed once, it renders the CO2- AGW hype a futile microcosmic notion.
This is the phase that I was referring to:
Now, where to begin? At the left hand, about how the system may work or at the right hand, where the pieces of the puzzle are falling nicely into place? And bottom up? emphasising how the current theories cannot explain numerous anomalies in the Pleistocene or top down? with a multiple phased rapid true polar wanders filling in the blanks?
Risk mitigation is a good idea. The RTPW story may even have some useful suggestions, albeit totally different from cutting back on fossile fuels and building windmills.
Solving Palaeo climate problems is simply the act of finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw (into the concrete).
(free interpretation of Brezikar's law about computer technology.)
Separate names with a comma.