< 350ppm CO2 : Where we need to aim

[NeilBlanchard]

What other parts of science do you not believe are true?

Do you believe that the Theory of Gravity is correct? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Falling?

Do you believe in evolution? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Do you believe in the theory of atomic structure? Or, something else is responsible for how physics and chemistry work?

Do you believe in DNA? Or, do you believe that God chooses what characteristics to give your child?

What about the theory of how the Universe works, and the life cycles of stars and galaxies? Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?

Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun? Or, does everything revolve around the Earth?

Is the Earth (approximately) a sphere -- or is it flat?

Do you believe that drugs are developed using scientific methods? Or, are they just lucky guesses?

You see, you can't believe in just parts of science -- it all works the same: we explore the unknown, and as we find out more and more, we theorize about how it works. Then, based on the evidence and peer review, the accepted theory emerges; and is continuously tested and debated. Things settle more, as scientist come into closer and closer agreement.

This is how it is for all scientific endeavors -- they are not just making this up! Global Climate Change is real and it is the predominant scientific conclusion that humans have affected an abrupt change in the climate, by burning old carbon fuels; releasing millions of years worth of old carbon in about 150 years.

A few naysayers here and there may be right -- but on the other hand, maybe the large majority of the scientists who study this are right? Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are??

Are you willing to take that risk?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun?

Off topic, but a REALLY bad example there, picking a number based on a definition cooked up to give the desired result. There's just no rational basis for concluding that there are eight planets.

As to the rest, I wish people would stop believing things, and start thinking instead.

[chuckm]

If you do not agree that Global Cimate Change is real...
What other parts of science do you not believe are true?

NeilBlanchard,
If you remember, in my first response to this thread, I said, "While I do not doubt that global warming is real and it is, to some extent, anthropogenic, I have doubts about how bad moderate warming is."

Regardless of what you or I may believe is the cause, the DATA says the earth has been warming over the past 150 years. Look through my posts... have I said otherwise? Do I think humans have contributed to this warming? Yes, though I do not think that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant source of warming. Again, let's go to the data. During the Jurassic period, the CO2 level was at 1950ppm. Agreed or not? The earth was 3ºC warmer than present. Agreed or not? But did you catch that? The Jurassic period had CO2 levels 5 times present levels and was only 3ºC warmer! It wasn't 10ºC warmer or even 5ºC warmer, but 3ºC. (Also, life seems to have flourished during the Jurassic period, despite this relative warmth.) The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios predicts that CO2 levels could be 541 - 970ppm by 2100. IOW, the worst case is that CO2 will be 1/2 of what it was in the Jurassic. Agreed or not? Based on those facts, what conclusions could I reasonably reach re: what temps will be like in 2100?

Just because I question the religious fervor surrounding global warming alarmism doesn't mean I am anti-science. Find me one statement that I've made on this thread that demonstrates an anti-science bias. I have gone out of my way to find and reason from a broad base of data, rather than throwing out so-called "fact bombs." You're not-so-veiled attempts above to set science against religion are misplaced. I am a Christian, yes, but I did not remove my brain at the altar.

So again, challenge me on facts. I welcome it.

Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are?

Again, I've already stated that I strongly favor the development and implementation of cleaner, more efficient and cheaper energy sources.

Originally Posted by chuckm

I do believe that we must work on being better stewards of the Earth and our resources. I do believe that we should develop cleaner and more efficient energy sources. I also believe that cheap, clean and efficient energy sources has the potential to raise billions of people out of poverty - meaning that developing this clean energy is imperative from a humanitarian perspective.

Additionally, since I believe that anthropogenic warming is real (also stated before), I do think that this is another reason we should strive for these non-fossil energy sources. However, I just don't happen to believe it is the crisis Hansen purports.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The huge majority of all climate scientists think that global climate change is a bad thing, and many of them now know that it is worse than we originally thought. In fact, all the data show that it is accelerating much faster than was thought just a few years ago. We need to let the scientists who study the facts, make their judgments. If we want to dismiss their conclusions, or reinterpret the data, then we are being arrogant.

James Hansen, Lonnie G. Thompson, et al are not making it up.

http://livinggreenbarrie.com/LvGnGlblWarmgIPCCRpt.pdf

As far as the number of planets in the solar system -- this is the decision also made by scientists based on the facts. Pluto is smaller than other objects that we have never called a planet, and it's orbit is pretty strange -- out of the plane and some of the time it is inside Uranus, IIRC.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by chuckm

Again, let's go to the data. During the Jurassic period, the CO2 level was at 1950ppm. Agreed or not? The earth was 3ºC warmer than present. Agreed or not? But did you catch that? The Jurassic period had CO2 levels 5 times present levels and was only 3ºC warmer! It wasn't 10ºC warmer or even 5ºC warmer, but 3ºC. (Also, life seems to have flourished during the Jurassic period, despite this relative warmth.)

If only we could dial back the solar constant on demand! Unfortunately, we can't, and we also can't expect to see the same rise in temperature w/ similar Carbon levels unless we figure out how to turn the sun down, or maybe drop the Earth's albedo. Geo-engineering anyone?

[Mustang Dave]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...Pluto is smaller than other objects that we have never called a planet, and it's orbit is pretty strange -- out of the plane and some of the time it is inside Uranus, IIRCC.

Yes, Pluto's status has been changed to "minor planet". Sort of a bummer for those who live in the town whose observatory's astronomer discovered Pluto.

Pluto's orbit only intersects the orbit of Neptune. Pluto has never been inside Uranus. Had to say it.

[chuckm]

Okay, jamesqf wants me to stop believing things and start thinking instead. NeilBlanchard want me to stop thinking and let the experts do that, saying it is "arrogant" for anybody else to question their conclusions. What to do?

Neil, I assume you are accusing me of being arrogant by disagreeing with these scientists. If it is arrogant to "reinterpret the data," then can you tell me how is that different than a dogmatic and authoritarian religion?

BTW, in reading that report, I happened to notice a GLARING error.

Since 1905 the average temperature of the planet, then at 14oC, has increased 2.5%, an unusually rapid rate (a 0.35oC rise). Over the last 25 years, from 1970 to 2005, it went up 4% (or 0.55oC). The total increase in global average temperature represents a rise of 5.4% (or 0.74oC) since 1750.

What's the problem? Simply this: units. They are using Celsius rather than Kelvin. Using Kelvin, 14oC becomes 287K. Recalculating the percentages, using Kelvin transforms the 2.5% into 0.11%. Next, using Kelvin transforms 4% into 0.19%. Finally, the scary 5.4% becomes 0.26%. Why is this important? Because 0oC represents only the temperature at which water freezes, nothing more. Picking that temperature scale only serves to blow the percentages higher. It is a disingenuous and self-serving choice of units.

Natural global temperature swings, whether up or down, took millennia to work themselves out. But over time the global climate itself is relatively stable and predictable.

Again, I've already shown that these generalizations are either false (again, the 8.2k event was a drastic 6oC shift that occurred in a 5 year time span) or gross misrepresentations (the Volstok ice cores show 8-10oC variations 5 times in the last 400 years... is that stable?).

IPCC scientists say that even if GHG concentrations remain at constant year 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), the global average temperature will likely rise from 0.3 to 0.9oC per decade.

I find this assertion to be vague and nearly useless. The implication is that temperatures will increase by 0.3-0.9oC every decade forever and ever. Such an implication is ridiculous; at some point, the temperature rise will stop (basic thermodynamics!). Besides, earlier periods with high CO2 concentrations had temperatures that were as stable, though 2-3oC higher, as ours - see above . Instead, they should have said that temperatures will increase by 0.3 - 0.9oC each decade for the next x years. But leaving the blank implication is much scarier.

Again, challenge me with facts. Until I see you present facts, my response to you will be like the French soldier in Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail:

Sir Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
French Soldier: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[chuckm]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

If only we could dial back the solar constant on demand! Unfortunately, we can't, and we also can't expect to see the same rise in temperature w/ similar Carbon levels unless we figure out how to turn the sun down, or maybe drop the Earth's albedo. Geo-engineering anyone?

Thanks for the link. Let me look through some of the associated papers it links to.


EDIT: As of 11/6, I still have only skimmed two of the linked papers. I've been pretty busy... I should have a little time this weekend.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by chuckm

During the Jurassic period, the CO2 level was at 1950ppm. Agreed or not? The earth was 3ºC warmer than present.

Sure, but the problem is that you're creating the unstated assumption that everything else was the same then as now, which is far from being the case. Solar constant, atmospheric pressure & composition, and many other things were different, so not surprising that there might be different results.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

As far as the number of planets in the solar system -- this is the decision also made by scientists based on the facts. Pluto is smaller than other objects that we have never called a planet, and it's orbit is pretty strange -- out of the plane and some of the time it is inside Uranus, IIRCC.

No, this was a decision made by a small committee, who cooked up a rather whacky definition of planet specifically to exclude Pluto. Those smaller objects are a few of the moons of the outer planets (which aren't called planets only because they orbit those planets), and the several recently-discovered planet-sized objects outside the orbit of Pluto, which the committee for some reason refuses to accept as planets.