Remember me
▼ Content

The 2 minute warning clock on climate change



Page 1 of 212>
The 2 minute warning clock on climate change05-10-2015 16:09
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi everyone,

Welcome to my new thread about climate change where I'd like to discuss the following topics:

1. Have we already passed the tipping point of no return on man-made climate change?

2. Due of man-made climate change, could the Earth be devoid of all life well before the end of this century?


To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere here, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find my this thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from my thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Given I lack the capacity to take authoritative action, I cannot moderate this thread. However, think of me like a janitor who aspires to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone.

If someone does not following the thread's guidelines, I will post a request asking them to amend their post of concern. Should they refuse, then in the spirit of maintaining goodwill here I will contact the website administrator/monitor and ask that they intervene.

Should you find another participant violating these guidelines, I would ask that you not respond to them. Instead, if I have not already addressed your concerns by post in this thread, please notify me so that I might do so immediately.

I look forward to your participation in my new thread and the opportunity to exchange ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Trafn
05-10-2015 16:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
I have a couple of quick clarification questions. You previously defined what "Climate" means to you. I didn't see any kind of "fulcrum component" or potential "tipping point" in there anywhere. What constitutes a "tipping point" for the global "climate"? To what change, or changes, in the global "climate" are you referring that cause the "climate" to "change" towards the specified "tipping point"?
05-10-2015 17:36
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Please feel free to post your own definitions of these terms so that we might discuss them. I will be making some posts of my own here shortly for your (and other's) consideration.
05-10-2015 20:24
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
#1 is hard to define. There is always a turning point depending on your time frame (i.e. human or geologic). But I think that by almost any definition, the answer is no, and it is at least a couple of decades away, depending on how our emissions go. Btw, I would define such a tipping point as meaning that we trigger other releases of greenhouse gases such that even if we stopped emitting any, the warming would continue for a long time on human time scales.

I don't see #2 as a serious threat this century or at all. Everything I have read is that a Venus-style runaway greenhouse process is not possible on earth due to our extra distance from the sun, and that is what it would take.
Edited on 05-10-2015 20:27
06-10-2015 00:42
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi drm,

Thank you for participating here.

I think you have a valid point about tipping points, but I also think that when it comes to people and man-made climate change, the real tipping point is not about temperature, or CO2, or ice melting (though all of these are important), it's more about us as a species and our attitudes toward the planet. I think the key turning point in our attitudes occurred in 1901 at a place called Spindletop, Texas, when an oil well called the Lucas One came it. It was like no other ever seen before (it was so stupefying that some 50,000 people traveled by horse to what was then the middle of no where to see it), and it changed our attitudes forever about the availability and use of cheap energy. As a species, we have never recovered from the misconceptions that were ingrained upon us that day, and this it the key driving force which keeps us plummeting down that AGW pathway. After all, the real solutions to this problem are simple: 1. population control, 2. recycling, and 3. renewable/solar energy. Unfortunately, as a species, we are addicted to sex, throwing things out, and petrochemicals: all learned behaviors we adopted after Spindletop. So, from my perspective, we have already passed the key tipping point for this epoch and are likely to take it all the way to its final conclusion.

As to how fast this will occur, usually when anyone discusses the rates of change associated with man-made climate change, they do so by first stating "if everything proceeds at the current rate...." which means they assume a process that advances under linear acceleration (i.e. - if the sea temperature rose 0.2 degrees over the past two decades, and it rises another 0.2 degrees over the next to decades, then....). I, however, believe there are many more as yet unseen factors which will come into play as time goes on, turning this into an exponentially accelerated process. For most of the time, up until you hit the apex point in exponential acceleration, both graphs look pretty much the same. I believe we'll reach that apex somewhere near or slight past mid-century, after which things will progress at a blindingly fast pace with terminal consequences.

I wrote about all of this last year in a book about climate change titled "Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up." I'm currently in the process of preparing the second edition for 2016, and I've attached a PDF of the first edition if you're interested in reading it. Your feedback is most welcome.
Attached file:
burstingtheatmosphere_1stedition2014_2.pdf
06-10-2015 03:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Wow, just finished watching Michael Oppenheimer's 2014 presentation at Pace University titled "When Will Climate Change Become Dangerous?" which is online at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tQlyNhYGYQ

Be sure to open the PDF slide file which is at (watch this and listen to the video):

http://www.pace.edu/paaes/sites/pace.edu.paaes/files/PPT_Oppenheimer_PaceLawSchool_Nov2014.pdf

The amazing thing to me about his talk is that after he gives a fairly comprehensive presentation on the current state of affairs concerning AGW, near the end me makes the following statements (I've listed video clock times if you're interested):

"What we don't have apparently is the good sense to do the things, even the relatively simple things, to protect ourselves from the next bad storm." (52:15)

"If it comes down to a world where we have to stop economic growth as we know it or solve the greenhouse problem, I can tell you we're not going to solve the greenhouse problem."(1:00:21)

"If I think about the big picture, you know, it's too much, it's too daunting." (1:03.19)

Now here's a man who has dedicated his life to the study of climate science, who adamantly believes there is AGW, and yet even he admits that we 1. lack good sense, 2. choose economics over the environment, and 3. that it's too much for even him to look at the big picture.

He reaffirms my belief that the tipping point for man-made climate change is not so much about the physical world (CO2 levels, melting ice, rising seas, etc.), but about our values/attitudes which were radically altered, as I stated in a prior post above, in 1901 (on January 10th at 10:30 a.m. to be exact).
06-10-2015 05:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
trafn wrote:He reaffirms my belief that the tipping point for man-made climate change is not so much about the physical world (CO2 levels, melting ice, rising seas, etc.), but about our values/attitudes which were radically altered, as I stated in a prior post above, in 1901 (on January 10th at 10:30 a.m. to be exact).

This sounds very similar to Rush Limbaugh's Christian view that we passed the tipping point back in the Carter Administration when our values/attitudes were radically altered and we began eroding the moral fabric of society.

You might be both talking about the same thing just with different labels and cited timelines.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2015 05:52
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Given my statement was not based upon the remarks of a theologian, but upon the remarks on an internationally noted climate scientist, it actually has much more in common with Jimmy Carter's famous speech that he gave on June 29th, 1979, the full version of which is at:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32500

In it he states, "This solar strategy will not be easy to accomplish. It will be a tremendous, exciting challenge to the American people, a challenge as important as exploring our first frontiers or building the greatest industrial society on Earth. By the end of this century, I want our Nation to derive 20 percent of all the energy we use from the Sun—direct solar energy in radiation and also renewable forms of energy derived more indirectly from the Sun. This is a bold proposal, and it's an ambitious goal. But it is attainable if we have the will to achieve it."

Sadly, of course, like many of Jimmy's good ideas, little attention or heed was paid to them. Just imagine where we would be today if we had listened.

Oh well, just another indication that we're unlikely to change from the short sighted, self-centered path which we embarked on for nearly 2 centuries ago.
Edited on 06-10-2015 06:00
06-10-2015 15:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
trafn wrote: Given my statement was not based upon the remarks of a theologian,

trafn, do you believe that a scientist can be religious?

For example, there are catholic priests with PhDs in physics, chemistry, et. al.

Michael Oppenheimer is a Professor of Geosciences and a Global Warming preacher. He is a member of the IPCC clergy.

Rush Limbaugh is not a theologian, nor a professor of anything, but he is religious. All I was saying is that his view and yours are amazingly similar, the parallels are undeniable. That's all.

trafn wrote:Sadly, of course, like many of Jimmy's good ideas, little attention or heed was paid to them. Just imagine where we would be today if we had listened.

I was going to ask you if you post in political fora. You are the kind of political diametric opposition I look for. In this forum, I stick to science (and sifting out the religion that tries to pass as science) but it is a mechanical thing. While science has some fasinating aspects, it's not as truly stimulating as fireball politics. That's where the fun is. I'd really like to find out where I can find more posters like you in a political setting.

Oh, yeah, you and I are not going to agree that Jimmy Carter had any good ideas. Solar energy is good, but it wasn't Jimmy Carter's idea. I don't think we'll agree that he even made any good decisions. I'll leave it at that.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-10-2015 00:58
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Thank you for your continued interest in this thread, however, your posts here raise a potential problem, as well as a unique opportunity.

Please remember that the object and focus of this thread are to discuss the questions I asked in its originating post. After reviewing the responses you've placed here so far, I have found them to be consistent with the positions which you have already stated throughout many threads on this website. I would summarize these positions as follows:

1. In order for data or discussions to fall within the realm of science, then they must have successfully satisfied Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models.

2. To date, no one has presented any evidence anywhere on this website that any hypotheses or theorems in support of man-made climate change have successfully satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models.

3. Anyone who expresses an opinion about man-made climate change which has not already successfully satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models is presenting a dogmatic theological point of view and not a science based one.

In this thread in particular, your contributions to date seem to be more concerned with point #3, above, and not the intended topics of this thread. The problem arises in that if you continue in this direction, you will be taking this thread off topic and, possibly, even road blocking it. Please know that your participation here, if on topic, is most welcomed. Otherwise, I would ask that you discontinue making any further posts in this thread until such time as you are prepared to stay on topic.

Conversely, in addition to this potential problem, your posts here also present a unique opportunity. While I personally do not agree with your positions as I perceive them and have outlined them above, I do feel that they are well worthy of discussion. Therefore, since these positions are tangential to the topics of this thread, and in keeping with the original guidelines I suggested when I created this thread, I have begun two new threads who's topics are:

1. Is Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models the only way of determining whether something is part of science? This thread can be found at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/are-falsifiable-models-the-only-way-to-validate-science-d6-e719.php

2. If someone makes a statement which has not already been proven to have satisfied Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models, does that exclude them from scientific discourse, and should they be labeled as a propagator of theological dogma? This thread can be found at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/are-you-a-theologian-or-scientist-ask-karl-popper--d6-e718.php#post_2490

I encourage everyone, especially yourself, to participate in these new threads with posts that are on topic, respectful of others, and free of road blocking.
Edited on 07-10-2015 01:03
07-10-2015 01:37
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
trafn - You asked about climate change tipping points and then suggest that the tipping point was prior to when anthro climate change had started affecting climate and in fact before there was any detected change in CO2 concentrations. The start of the oil age may well correspond to some red-letter date in the industrial age, but I can't see how it is a tipping point for AGW.

As to the pace, I personally did not mention the "current rate". CO2 concentrations are increasing exponentially and so terms like "business as usual" or maybe references to the IPCC scenarios are what I would consider. You mention unseen factors creating a fast exponential process. While I think it will be exponential, a fast increasing exponential curve that results in the earth, as you say initially, being "devoid of all life" is not suggested by any of the research. Even if the process does continue an exponential increase, reaching runaway greenhouse temperatures would take a lot longer than the middle of this century.

For me, the wildcard as to AGW impacts is not what it does ecologically, it is how we respond. It isn't impossible that AGW could lead to conflict, violence, war, even nuclear war. The greatest ecological threat is probably drought in food-producing areas. And a starving country that can't get food for it's people but who has nuclear weapons may well decide to use them rather than just starve. Then all bets are off.
07-10-2015 09:09
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Expecting the Unexpected: Abrupt Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=419&v=EmIkppjplqU

As Prof Richard Alley says in the video above "The uncertainties are mostly on the 'bad' side"



Edited on 07-10-2015 09:14
07-10-2015 22:43
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi drm,

1. Keep in mind that when most people speak of the AGW tipping point, they are referring to physical factors like CO2 levels, melting ice, and rising sea level. While these are indeed one way of looking at the AGW tipping point, I think the critical one we should think about is not one that is physical at all. It's our attitudes about the environment, the planet and energy use. The reason I place 1901 as the key date is that the oil well at Spindeltop revolutionized the oil industry. Prior to that, coal was still king, but with Lucas One the price of a oil dropped from $2 per barrel down to $0.03 per barrel. This made the large scale refinement of gasoline possible which, in turn, made automobile mass transportation possible. In addition, it revolutionized people's attitudes about energy production and consumption. No more digging in dark, dangerous mines. Just plunk a pipe in the ground and out pours liquid gold. Spindletop made us believe that energy was vastly available, cheap to produce and without consequence when used (yes, CO2 was not being measured then). That's why there are so many climate change doubters. It's not that they don't get it, it's just that the reality threatens their values (desire to live in a petrochemical world) so they avoid the real issue (their fear from their values being threatened) and turn on the issue (climate change).

2. It seems every 2-3 years something "unexpected" pops up. James Hansens most recent article, for example, moved many of the previously critical target dates from being a few centuries away to a few decades away. Who's to say in another 2 or 3 years that Hansen or someone else might discover something that moves them again from a few decades away to a few years away? Then there are sudden unexpected catastrophes like climate change driven famines or epidemics which could take us all by surprise and kill a significant portion of the planet's population. You could drive yourself nuts with all the potential Hollywood scenarios. But one thing that has always amazed me is that prior to this century, whenever someone talked about the world ending, it was always someone preaching from biblical or other religious text. Today, for the first time in history, we are talking about the possibility of world-wide, life-ending planetary events from a scientific perspective. While the version I've proposed (exponential driven) has only been talked about by a very few people so far, I do believe it is a real possibility that could cause us to rewrite everything we think as it happens.

3. I agree that it is our response that matters. Unfortunately, as a species, I find that we're addicted to fucking, throwing things out and burning petrochemicals. This means that it's unlikely that we'll do the three things that could actually prevent AGW from progressing to a tragic conclusion: population control, recycling, and renewable/solar power. Time will tell, but I'm not holding my breath.
Edited on 07-10-2015 22:56
07-10-2015 22:52
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Ceist,

Great video. Yes, we should expect the unexpected when it comes to AGW. After all, we've never actually witnessed any planet, yet alone our own, undergo this type of process. So everything's open for consideration. To think we know everything that could possibly happen is absolute hubris. That's why I think that when we have stimulated enough warming forces to a critical level, they will suddenly interact in an exponential fashion. There are so many well known AGW forces already operating well above the level of natural variation that I imagine that the apex point for exponential acceleration of AGW is probably only a few decades away. Remember that due to the lag time, what we're seeing today is largely due to the components we added to equation 30-40 years ago. What we're doing right now won't even reveal it's hand for a few decades to come.
08-10-2015 05:09
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi drm,

In a prior post above, you stated:

While I think it will be exponential, a fast increasing exponential curve that results in the earth, as you say initially, being "devoid of all life" is not suggested by any of the research. Even if the process does continue an exponential increase, reaching runaway greenhouse temperatures would take a lot longer than the middle of this century.


I agree that it's a pretty obscure topic. I just happen to be watching a 2013 climate change debate series which was held at the Arizona State University which and hosted by Lawrence Krauss *:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR95nSsbPZs

If you watch starting at time mark 9:00, he briefly mentions the possibility of pending catastrophic exponential acceleration to climate change (he refers to it as "non-linear" instead of "exponential").

Of course, his catastrophic probably isn't the same as my catastrophic, but catastrophic is catastrophic.

* Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and director of its Origins Project.
Edited on 08-10-2015 05:12
08-10-2015 06:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
trafn wrote: I think the critical one we should think about is not one that is physical at all. It's our attitudes about the environment, the planet and energy use.

Moral decay, right?

trafn wrote: That's why there are so many climate change doubters. It's not that they don't get it, it's just that the reality threatens their values (desire to live in a petrochemical world)

Another person might use wording to the effect of "That's why we have so many people who have lost their way. It's not that they don't have a sense for what's right and wrong but they are drawn to the decadence of the immoral lifestyle."

trafn wrote: Who's to say in another 2 or 3 years that Hansen or someone else might discover something that moves them again from a few decades away to a few years away?

It will be called another number fudge and I think it's fairly certain to happen sooner, and more regularly, than you projecting.

trafn wrote:Then there are sudden unexpected catastrophes like climate change driven famines or epidemics which could take us all by surprise and kill a significant portion of the planet's population.

Most religions talk of their god sending plagues to punish mankind for his sins. This is pretty standard.

trafn wrote:
But one thing that has always amazed me is that prior to this century, whenever someone talked about the world ending, it was always someone preaching from biblical or other religious text. Today, for the first time in history, we are talking about the possibility of world-wide, life-ending planetary events from a scientific perspective.

Not quite. It's from a "The Science" perspective. It's still preaching from a religious dogma. Nothing has changed.

trafn wrote: Unfortunately, as a species, I find that we're addicted to fucking, throwing things out and burning petrochemicals.

I have good news. The burning of petrochemicals is of no consequence other than eventually the heroin addict is going to run our of heroin.

There's not much we can do about the limitation on our resources so, yes, recycling and reuse should naturally be optimized. We truly are addicted to convenience.

Sex. I don't see that going away anytime soon. What does overpopulation have to do with "climate"? (it certainly doesn't fit into your definition).


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 06:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
I'm still watching that same video I just posted about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR95nSsbPZs

I highly recommend it to anyone with an open and inquisitive mind.
08-10-2015 08:23
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Reid Bryson answered both of the questions posed in post #1 with this comment:

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
08-10-2015 12:43
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Earthling wrote:
Reid Bryson answered both of the questions posed in post #1 with this comment:

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."


I wonder what the US Airforce would have said to him?

How to talk to an ostrich



Edited on 08-10-2015 12:45
08-10-2015 16:16
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Hi Ceist,

Great video. Yes, we should expect the unexpected when it comes to AGW. After all, we've never actually witnessed any planet, yet alone our own, undergo this type of process. So everything's open for consideration. To think we know everything that could possibly happen is absolute hubris. That's why I think that when we have stimulated enough warming forces to a critical level, they will suddenly interact in an exponential fashion. There are so many well known AGW forces already operating well above the level of natural variation that I imagine that the apex point for exponential acceleration of AGW is probably only a few decades away. Remember that due to the lag time, what we're seeing today is largely due to the components we added to equation 30-40 years ago. What we're doing right now won't even reveal it's hand for a few decades to come.


Here's another by Dr Stephen Schneider (sadly he died in 2010), discussing 'risks'. He starts talking about 'tipping points' around the 8.30 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM


08-10-2015 18:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Earthling - I'm not quite sure I get the connections between your most recent post and the questions I asked at the beginning of this thread. Would you please explain them?

Ceist - I love Dr. Schneider's comment near the end where he says, "We know the tipping points exist, we just don't know where they are?" He then goes on to say that in terms of Greenland, we may not even know when we've past it's tipping point (for melting all it's ice) until 50 years after we've crossed it.

It's as if we're walking into a mine field with blind folders on.

Edited on 08-10-2015 18:11
08-10-2015 18:40
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Ceist wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Reid Bryson answered both of the questions posed in post #1 with this comment:

"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."


I wonder what the US Airforce[sic] would have said to him?
What does the The United States Air Force know about the subject?


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 18:47
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
trafn wrote:Earthling - I'm not quite sure I get the connections between your most recent post and the questions I asked at the beginning of this thread. Would you please explain them?
The connections are blatantly obvious.

trafn wrote:Ceist - I love Dr. Schneider's comment near the end where he says, "We know the tipping points exist, we just don't know where they are?" He then goes on to say that in terms of Greenland, we may not even know when we've past[sic] it's tipping point (for melting all it's ice) until 50 years after we've crossed it.

It's as if we're walking into a mine field with blind folders[sic] on.
Stephen Schneider was a global cooling freak in the 70s.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 18:53
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Earthling,

You might want to take a look at the video link which Ceist gave you in his post above. I did, and it answers your question completely.

In relation to this, all branches of the United States military are involved in innumerable amounts of scientific research for military as well as non-military purposes.
08-10-2015 18:54
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Trafn - Sure, we could be surprised. Stephen Hawking has famously said that he is very worried about a Venus runaway scenario for the earth, despite research saying that it isn't going to happen like that. Overall I am not an optimist that our civilization will act to stop AGW any time soon. It's just not the kind of challenge that we are accustomed to dealing with. The institutions that exist to respond to challenges are not suited to this one. More commonly such challenges result in conflict than in cooperative solution-making. Still, when it comes to the climatological and ecological factors that drive the need for that response, I'm going to stick with what we know at the moment, while acknowledging we could still be surprised.

I see you are in Florida. Are you just a few inches above sea level? I seem to remember that Florida is the flattest state in the US.
Edited on 08-10-2015 18:56
08-10-2015 18:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Earthling,

I would imagine that what you post is blatantly obvious to at least you, and I apologize if I appear ignorant of what is obvious to you. But that's the point of this website: so we can share and explain our thoughts to others.

So, if you don't mind taking a moment, would you please explain to me the connection between the Reid Bryson quite you cited above and the questions I asked at the beginning of the thread. The connection between this is not obvious to me.
08-10-2015 19:02
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi drm,

Yes, I'd agree with you that the current volume of climate science data does not point toward exponential acceleration, yet, as we both seem to agree, that does not rule out its possibility. I appreciate your skepticism and will continue to post new information on the topic as it becomes available so that we might further discuss this fascinating issue.

As to Florida, the entire southern half of the state is basically a flood zone, and many coastal regions, like Miami Beach, are already experiencing regular flooding from sea level rise attributed to man-made climate change.
08-10-2015 19:02
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Earthling wrote:
Stephen Schneider was a global cooling freak in the 70s.


Hmm. In 1971 Schneider participated in a submitted paper that calculated the cooling factors from the dense air pollution that then existed. There was nothing wrong with those calculations as far as I know. But we have lessened that air pollution since then.

There was a popular media frenzy about the possibility of a new ice age. That ended when the American Meterological Society put out a statement that nothing of the sort was coming.

Does that single paper make Schneider a global cooling freak?
08-10-2015 19:11
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
drm wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Stephen Schneider was a global cooling freak in the 70s.


Hmm. In 1971 Schneider participated in a submitted paper that calculated the cooling factors from the dense air pollution that then existed. There was nothing wrong with those calculations as far as I know. But we have lessened that air pollution since then.

There was a popular media frenzy about the possibility of a new ice age. That ended when the American Meterological Society put out a statement that nothing of the sort was coming.

Does that single paper make Schneider a global cooling freak?
Take a look at this clip starring young Stephen in his flares:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdWTBNyvX0


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 19:13
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
trafn wrote:
Hi Earthling,

I would imagine that what you post is blatantly obvious to at least you, and I apologize if I appear ignorant of what is obvious to you. But that's the point of this website: so we can share and explain our thoughts to others.

So, if you don't mind taking a moment, would you please explain to me the connection between the Reid Bryson quite you cited above and the questions I asked at the beginning of the thread. The connection between this is not obvious to me.
Take a moment, then tell me what you think isn't obvious?


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 19:17
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
trafn wrote:
... all branches of the United States military are involved in innumerable amounts of scientific research for military as well as non-military purposes.
I have that filed under R for rubbish.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 19:17
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
That video clip merely shows Schneider commenting that taking actions (geoengineering) to intentionally warm the planet are risky. Nowhere in it does he say that global cooling is a threat or likely. And it's hard to know the context for the 45 second clip. Can you find anything in which he specifically says that global cooling is a serious threat?
08-10-2015 19:22
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
drm wrote:
That video clip merely shows Schneider commenting that taking actions (geoengineering) to intentionally warm the planet are risky. Nowhere in it does he say that global cooling is a threat or likely. And it's hard to know the context for the 45 second clip. Can you find anything in which he specifically says that global cooling is a serious threat?
There's more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2ugPM0cRM


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 19:22
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Trafn - if that quote from Bryson was correct, then obviously the answer to your two questions would be no. The quote is nonsense but if one believes it, there are no tipping points.
08-10-2015 19:25
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
drm wrote:
Trafn - if that quote from Bryson was correct, then obviously the answer to your two questions would be no. The quote is nonsense but if one believes it, there are no tipping points.
And you know for a fact that there are tipping points?
How?


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 19:26
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Earthling wrote:There's more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2ugPM0cRM


He doesn't even mention global cooling in this video, he only talks about global warming. Everything he says in it has turned out to be correct. It proves that he was quite prescient.

This reminds me that a denier once posted a link to a paper that he said proved that global warming was caused by the sun. When I read the abstract, it said that the sun could not possibly cause global warming.

Your claim that he was a global cooling freak remains unproven.
Edited on 08-10-2015 19:34
08-10-2015 19:27
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Earthling,

Your recent posts here and elsewhere bear a striking resemblance to those of another member of whom we are all well aware.

For reasons of your own, you both like to freely express your opinion (which is most welcome on this website) and you both regularly critique the opinions of others posted here (which is most welcome when done with respect), yet neither of you seems inclinded to explain the content of your posts when asked to do so by someone else.

As I've stated twice already, I don't see any connection between the Reid Bryson quote you cited above and the questions I asked at the beginning of the thread.

It would be most pleasant to think it not necessary to ask four times before you can provide a response which addresses my question instead of ignoring it.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 08-10-2015 19:27
08-10-2015 19:32
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi drm,

Yes, it would seem given Earthling's defensive refusal to address my request for clarification, that like another member of our community, he is only behaving in this manner so as to draw attention to himself and create conflict on this website. It also raises the likelihood, as you suggested, that he really has little of value to add to this thread at this time.

Perhaps Earthling will reconsider his approach here and become a valued member of our community. As for now, the type of behavior he displays resembles that of a child who lacks the maturity to interact politely with adults.

I'd suggest we leave him in the corner where he belongs. Shall we?


Edited on 08-10-2015 19:33
08-10-2015 21:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
trafn wrote:Yes, it would seem given Earthling's defensive refusal to address my request for clarification, that like another member of our community, he is only behaving in this manner so as to draw attention to himself and create conflict on this website.

You must be new to this Global Warming thing.

Earthling and yourself are of differing Global Warming denominations, and he is treating you like you are of a competing religion. He shares all your basic Global Warming theology, just not the catastrophe "world is going to end" dogma. You and he are on the same team. Deal with it.

Earthling, just like you, EVADES science like its the Terminator out to get him. He's a huge "greenhouse effect" guy who similarly has no science to support his faith. You two are supposed to be joining forces against me and my evil science that runs counter to "The Science."

Oh, btw, because you are of the catastrophist denomination, you are his sworn enemy. He can't forgive you and your blasphemy. You won't be able to forgive his sacrilege. Neither of you can address science.

You apparently need a scorecard.

trafn wrote: It also raises the likelihood, as you suggested, that he really has little of value to add to this thread at this time.

Like I said, he's just like you.

trafn wrote: Perhaps Earthling will reconsider his approach here and become a valued member of our community.

Why do you ask? Were you reconsidering your approach so as to become a valued member?

I'm wondering how long it will take before you realize that your attempts to bully just won't work. Earthling is not going to run away, nor is he going to convert to your catastrophist denomination, just because you try to browbeat him. Have you ever had success with that approach?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 21:43
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Earthling wrote:
And you know for a fact that there are tipping points?
How?


I don't know for a 100% certainty that there are tipping points, however the science and the paleo-climatic history strongly suggest it. We know for a fact that the earth has large stores of greenhouse gases in various places, and we know that enough added heat can release them. We just don't know exactly how much it takes to trigger that or how fast they will come out when that process starts.

There are many places in the Arctic where you can stick a pole in the ground, hold a match to the top of the hole, and there will be a flame from the methane that is being released as permafrost melts due to warming. There is even more methane in the deep oceans, though it will be much longer until the seas have warmed enough to release them.

The climatic history of the ice ages also indicates discontinuities in the warming trends that indicate tipping points.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The 2 minute warning clock on climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The 'grandfather' of climate science leaves a final warning for Earth304-03-2019 00:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact