- #1
Andre
- 4,311
- 74
Summary for Intellectuals
It’s a dedicated duty for mankind to preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations. Earth- and environmental scienctists are the observers and analysts for policymakers to decide the best course of action. But the mysteries of Earth are exceptional and the more discoveries are done, the less we seem to understand. Nevertheless, once a certain idea has been established that responds to the urge to act and to do something useful, it seems counter intuitive to challenge the established policy. Yet it is paramount that we do the right things and prioritize using basic economic principles about assets, effectiveness and efficiency. So we need to reflect and evaluate our course of action continuously. Unfortunately this process has been misinterpreted as a battle between environmental activists and skeptics with an agenda.
So the current issue at hand is global warming or understated as “climate change”. The ideas about this phenomenon accumulated in the 1980ies. Using the scientific method, the global warming idea is based on the principles of greenhouse gas forcing, increased CO2 levels and empiric observations. Apparently sound enough. However science progresses and ideas need to be readjusted whenever the “facts” change. Nevertheless, the global warming theory seems to be unchangeable and thus casting doubt on the integrity of the science. What follows is a summary of the discussions in general.
The world is warming
So it seems indeed. We accept that fact, which includes melting glaciers, changing biotopes and receding arctic ice. This actually makes a jay – nay discussion in this area less relevant. The discussion should be about the possible causes of those changes.
There is also the secret Urban Heat Island correction for the temperature record of Jones et al that many like to see transparent. There are some alternative ideas that would result in a more moderate rate of warming. Moreover, the stream of all too enthusiastic “slippery slope” claims of activists and scaremongers needs to be moderated constantly. The ice caps are not melting completely. The glaciers will not disappear, Sea levels will not surge. Palaeo climatic evidence reveals that the Earth has warmed many times before to values well above the current and it has always cooled after that.
There is broad consensus that the warming is caused by greenhouse gasses
Obviously the bandwagon fallacy. It’s ever so easy to proclaim this as a scientist. It ensures that one is appreciated as standing for a good cause. Although there is probably no deliberate cheating going on, it’s more about generating a selective set of acceptance standards. Either raising the standards for evidence against AGW (or ignore it) whilst lowering standards for anything that supports global warming (this is how the flawed hockey stick could make it to poster child of the IPCC and to “figure one” of the Summary for Policy makers). And no doubt one can convince oneself this way that AGW is very very true and must be countered immediately.
Moreover, consensus is not a part of the scientific method and no guarantee whatsoever that this makes it true. How many Afreds Wegeners were needed for instance to
point out the plate tectonics? and how many Galileo’s..etc.
Finally there are several dozens of climatologists in a secret hide out who keep wondering bewilderedly how consensus could have been proclaimed without them.
There is a body of evidence to support the cause of the warming to be anthropogenic;
Note that such a claim is not backed up lately with reference to publications that unambiguously proof it indeed.
In the older papers you’d get ice core temperature reconstructions here but since it was obvious that the “temperature rise” preceded the increase of CO2, it’s evidence value had been reduced. Moreover, some 80 ppm change in CO2 seemed to be related to 10-15 degrees Celsius temperature changes whilst nowadays we are already on 100 ppm chance since 1850 with only about 0,6 degrees Celsius temperature change, which makes the ice age evidence rather awkward. You could point to strong positive feedback factors, but why are those feedback factors not doing the same today? So the hockey stick was quite welcome to replace the ice age evidence in 1998 and could be regarded as the key evidence, if it had not been refuted by Hans Von Storch et al and McIntyre & McIttrick explicitly and the several other climatologic constructions like Moberg (2005) implicitly, suggesting that the main driver for climate is not CO2.
So what is the current evidence? Are the ice age ideas being revisited and renewed as evidence for instance?
All climate models invariably show a continuous warming trend
Yes of course they do. What is a model? A mathematical simulation of a physical reality? It relies not only on the mathematics but also on the data. The sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing is one of them; feedback factors are as well. So check the TAR IPCC and you’ll find something like say 2-3 degrees for doubling CO2. It’s well known and fully reproducable that the basic mathematics (Arrhenius, Stefan Boltzman laws) produces only a value of about 0,7 degrees for a black body as I have shown somewhere. So why 2-3 degrees instead? Because we think that we have empirical evidence for that from the ice cores of the poles, the hockeystick, the Pinatubo eruption etc that there is a strong positive feedback factor mostly generated by water vapor. However, no matter how sophisticated, garbage in is garbage out.
However there is also statistical evidence (Kärner 2002, 2005) that a single dimensional random walk of the Lower Troposphere temperatures show a stable pattern (Hearst exponent < 0.5). We will go into detail about the ice ages later, showing a much stronger stability of temperatures than assumed. Consequently, the essential thing here the model input of the greenhouse warming factor for doubling CO2 and it’s feedback. Nobody feeds the models with in 0,7 degrees per doubling and a negative feedback. This would give completely different results, probably multiple warming and cooling cycles with a slight overall warming trend of less than 0,5 degrees per century.
So with little sensitivity of climate to CO2 it is also clear that mankind’s ability correcting climate changes are meager if not non-existent.
Moreover, the role of simulation models in the scientific methods is verifying hypotheses to see if these can be substantiated. They simply cannot be used for predicting the future. and giving the result of the models a true predicting status, climate science departs the established “modus operandi”.
In the near future we may encounter a tipping point after which climate will not recover and positive feedback factors may even induce a thermal runaway condition.
These speculations are both based on the thermal conditions on planet Venus, attributed to extreme greenhouse gas effect and on the unexplained isotope spikes in the ice cores that are thought to be rapid temperature changes. However a certain bear of little brain has demonstrated that other mechanisms could explain the conditions of Venus better. He is now finalizing a comprehensive assessment of the true nature of the isotope spikes in the ice cores. This would further vindicate the futility of controlling emission for the sake of climate preservation.
There is a shrinking number of skeptics –enemies of the environment- who are bribed by the oil companies.
Poisoning the well fallacy and no doubt the worlds most common and effective ad hominem ever, even used by Tony Blair in his environment speech albeit without the oil companies.
Actually it’s true. The number of evil climate hoodlums is likely to approach zero quite rapidly if not already. The oil companies have recognized some decade ago that a countering AGW policy would put them out of business very quickly. But the myth lingers on, fueled unchallenged by activists because it’s all so obvious.
Instead of those villains there is a growing body of sincere objective independent intellectuals who recognize the flawed science of global warming and who have sincere reservations for the consequences of the draconic drivel deeds in the battle against a imaginary enemy. Unfortunately, they have to choose between either keeping low profile, preserving position, budgets and careers or speak up, risking tar & feathers.
Conclusion
As it appears that the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas forcing is highly exaggerated and pending the further refinements of pooh’s palaeo-climate research it is advisable to divert assets to alternative problem areas. Preserving biotopes biomass and biodiversity but also the gradual conversion of fossil fuel use to true and reliable renewables for the sake of sustainability and preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations
Discussion?
It’s a dedicated duty for mankind to preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations. Earth- and environmental scienctists are the observers and analysts for policymakers to decide the best course of action. But the mysteries of Earth are exceptional and the more discoveries are done, the less we seem to understand. Nevertheless, once a certain idea has been established that responds to the urge to act and to do something useful, it seems counter intuitive to challenge the established policy. Yet it is paramount that we do the right things and prioritize using basic economic principles about assets, effectiveness and efficiency. So we need to reflect and evaluate our course of action continuously. Unfortunately this process has been misinterpreted as a battle between environmental activists and skeptics with an agenda.
So the current issue at hand is global warming or understated as “climate change”. The ideas about this phenomenon accumulated in the 1980ies. Using the scientific method, the global warming idea is based on the principles of greenhouse gas forcing, increased CO2 levels and empiric observations. Apparently sound enough. However science progresses and ideas need to be readjusted whenever the “facts” change. Nevertheless, the global warming theory seems to be unchangeable and thus casting doubt on the integrity of the science. What follows is a summary of the discussions in general.
The world is warming
So it seems indeed. We accept that fact, which includes melting glaciers, changing biotopes and receding arctic ice. This actually makes a jay – nay discussion in this area less relevant. The discussion should be about the possible causes of those changes.
There is also the secret Urban Heat Island correction for the temperature record of Jones et al that many like to see transparent. There are some alternative ideas that would result in a more moderate rate of warming. Moreover, the stream of all too enthusiastic “slippery slope” claims of activists and scaremongers needs to be moderated constantly. The ice caps are not melting completely. The glaciers will not disappear, Sea levels will not surge. Palaeo climatic evidence reveals that the Earth has warmed many times before to values well above the current and it has always cooled after that.
There is broad consensus that the warming is caused by greenhouse gasses
Obviously the bandwagon fallacy. It’s ever so easy to proclaim this as a scientist. It ensures that one is appreciated as standing for a good cause. Although there is probably no deliberate cheating going on, it’s more about generating a selective set of acceptance standards. Either raising the standards for evidence against AGW (or ignore it) whilst lowering standards for anything that supports global warming (this is how the flawed hockey stick could make it to poster child of the IPCC and to “figure one” of the Summary for Policy makers). And no doubt one can convince oneself this way that AGW is very very true and must be countered immediately.
Moreover, consensus is not a part of the scientific method and no guarantee whatsoever that this makes it true. How many Afreds Wegeners were needed for instance to
point out the plate tectonics? and how many Galileo’s..etc.
Finally there are several dozens of climatologists in a secret hide out who keep wondering bewilderedly how consensus could have been proclaimed without them.
There is a body of evidence to support the cause of the warming to be anthropogenic;
Note that such a claim is not backed up lately with reference to publications that unambiguously proof it indeed.
In the older papers you’d get ice core temperature reconstructions here but since it was obvious that the “temperature rise” preceded the increase of CO2, it’s evidence value had been reduced. Moreover, some 80 ppm change in CO2 seemed to be related to 10-15 degrees Celsius temperature changes whilst nowadays we are already on 100 ppm chance since 1850 with only about 0,6 degrees Celsius temperature change, which makes the ice age evidence rather awkward. You could point to strong positive feedback factors, but why are those feedback factors not doing the same today? So the hockey stick was quite welcome to replace the ice age evidence in 1998 and could be regarded as the key evidence, if it had not been refuted by Hans Von Storch et al and McIntyre & McIttrick explicitly and the several other climatologic constructions like Moberg (2005) implicitly, suggesting that the main driver for climate is not CO2.
So what is the current evidence? Are the ice age ideas being revisited and renewed as evidence for instance?
All climate models invariably show a continuous warming trend
Yes of course they do. What is a model? A mathematical simulation of a physical reality? It relies not only on the mathematics but also on the data. The sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing is one of them; feedback factors are as well. So check the TAR IPCC and you’ll find something like say 2-3 degrees for doubling CO2. It’s well known and fully reproducable that the basic mathematics (Arrhenius, Stefan Boltzman laws) produces only a value of about 0,7 degrees for a black body as I have shown somewhere. So why 2-3 degrees instead? Because we think that we have empirical evidence for that from the ice cores of the poles, the hockeystick, the Pinatubo eruption etc that there is a strong positive feedback factor mostly generated by water vapor. However, no matter how sophisticated, garbage in is garbage out.
However there is also statistical evidence (Kärner 2002, 2005) that a single dimensional random walk of the Lower Troposphere temperatures show a stable pattern (Hearst exponent < 0.5). We will go into detail about the ice ages later, showing a much stronger stability of temperatures than assumed. Consequently, the essential thing here the model input of the greenhouse warming factor for doubling CO2 and it’s feedback. Nobody feeds the models with in 0,7 degrees per doubling and a negative feedback. This would give completely different results, probably multiple warming and cooling cycles with a slight overall warming trend of less than 0,5 degrees per century.
So with little sensitivity of climate to CO2 it is also clear that mankind’s ability correcting climate changes are meager if not non-existent.
Moreover, the role of simulation models in the scientific methods is verifying hypotheses to see if these can be substantiated. They simply cannot be used for predicting the future. and giving the result of the models a true predicting status, climate science departs the established “modus operandi”.
In the near future we may encounter a tipping point after which climate will not recover and positive feedback factors may even induce a thermal runaway condition.
These speculations are both based on the thermal conditions on planet Venus, attributed to extreme greenhouse gas effect and on the unexplained isotope spikes in the ice cores that are thought to be rapid temperature changes. However a certain bear of little brain has demonstrated that other mechanisms could explain the conditions of Venus better. He is now finalizing a comprehensive assessment of the true nature of the isotope spikes in the ice cores. This would further vindicate the futility of controlling emission for the sake of climate preservation.
There is a shrinking number of skeptics –enemies of the environment- who are bribed by the oil companies.
Poisoning the well fallacy and no doubt the worlds most common and effective ad hominem ever, even used by Tony Blair in his environment speech albeit without the oil companies.
Actually it’s true. The number of evil climate hoodlums is likely to approach zero quite rapidly if not already. The oil companies have recognized some decade ago that a countering AGW policy would put them out of business very quickly. But the myth lingers on, fueled unchallenged by activists because it’s all so obvious.
Instead of those villains there is a growing body of sincere objective independent intellectuals who recognize the flawed science of global warming and who have sincere reservations for the consequences of the draconic drivel deeds in the battle against a imaginary enemy. Unfortunately, they have to choose between either keeping low profile, preserving position, budgets and careers or speak up, risking tar & feathers.
Conclusion
As it appears that the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas forcing is highly exaggerated and pending the further refinements of pooh’s palaeo-climate research it is advisable to divert assets to alternative problem areas. Preserving biotopes biomass and biodiversity but also the gradual conversion of fossil fuel use to true and reliable renewables for the sake of sustainability and preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations
Discussion?
Last edited:
