Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
budgie smuggler said:
Not sure I follow, you're saying CO2 was 5x higher in the cretaceous period, therefore it's fine now as well? As your graphic shows, the average temperature was 10c hotter than now!
I think he is saying there is little correlation between CO2 and temperatures and that very high CO2 levels did not lead to a runaway greenhouse Earth.durbster said:
budgie smuggler said:
robinessex said:
Please don't ask awkward questions like that!! I've repeatedly asked in the other CC room, and answer have been none from the believers. As for Durbsters “That temperatures will rise if CO2 increases is well known and overwhelmingly accepted” is complete b
ks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-
The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
Not sure I follow, you're saying CO2 was 5x higher in the cretaceous period, therefore it's fine now as well? As your graphic shows, the average temperature was 10c hotter than now!ks except for the believers. Hence the reason he doesn’t like this graph:-The planets CO2 level(s) have been far higher in the past, and the planet didn’t burst into flames. Whilst the dinosaurs were here, CO2 was about 5 times higher than now, and they survived 50,000,000 years.
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warme...
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. Toltec said:
Flibble said:
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
The IPCC says things such as-
"Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
I have a big problem with that because if that were the case why did the planet not go into full runaway warming in previous high temperature and CO2 climates? There must clearly be feedback systems that cause cooling, now that isn't to say changes couldn't make the climate difficult and likely for many thousands of years, however the above sounds more alarmist than strictly factual.
I suppose it is Anthropomorphic Global Warming so I suppose looking at it with an anthropomorphic bias and timescale is to be expected.
I know you have a thing about hearing about scary things - dramatic scenarios sound alarming which = alarmist and must be treated with deepest suspicion right? Fine. But please don't say these things aren't factual when there's good evidence for them. Google abrupt climate change (or go and hide behind the sofa with the children, whatever).
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 12th September 09:41
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. 
An even stronger correlation...... but.... there is that whole causation thing...
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. An even stronger correlation...... but.... there is that whole causation thing...
kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
Flibble said:
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
The IPCC says things such as-
"Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
I have a big problem with that because if that were the case why did the planet not go into full runaway warming in previous high temperature and CO2 climates? There must clearly be feedback systems that cause cooling, now that isn't to say changes couldn't make the climate difficult and likely for many thousands of years, however the above sounds more alarmist than strictly factual.
I suppose it is Anthropomorphic Global Warming so I suppose looking at it with an anthropomorphic bias and timescale is to be expected.
I know you have a thing about hearing about scary things - dramatic scenarios sound alarming which = alarmist and must be treated with deepest suspicion right? Fine. But please don't say these things aren't factual when there's good evidence for them. Google abrupt climate change (or go and hide behind the sofa with the children, whatever).
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 12th September 09:41
The scary thing is convincing people that if only they pay more tax it will all be fixed and the climate won't change.
The scary thing is what is going to happen when the climate changes and we start fighting over resources.
kerplunk said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. An even stronger correlation...... but.... there is that whole causation thing...
QuantumTokoloshi said:
kerplunk said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. An even stronger correlation...... but.... there is that whole causation thing...
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
Flibble said:
Plenty of wavelengths in the normal earth temperature range which H2O is largely transparent to but CO2 is opaque to, e.g. around 15 µm.
The IPCC says things such as-
"Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
I have a big problem with that because if that were the case why did the planet not go into full runaway warming in previous high temperature and CO2 climates? There must clearly be feedback systems that cause cooling, now that isn't to say changes couldn't make the climate difficult and likely for many thousands of years, however the above sounds more alarmist than strictly factual.
I suppose it is Anthropomorphic Global Warming so I suppose looking at it with an anthropomorphic bias and timescale is to be expected.
I know you have a thing about hearing about scary things - dramatic scenarios sound alarming which = alarmist and must be treated with deepest suspicion right? Fine. But please don't say these things aren't factual when there's good evidence for them. Google abrupt climate change (or go and hide behind the sofa with the children, whatever).
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 12th September 09:41
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 12th September 12:05
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
You missed the irreversible bit.
No I didn't. Are still equating the IPCC statement with runaway warming?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23377-4
abstract
The notion that small changes can have large consequences in the climate or ecosystems has become popular as the concept of tipping points. Typically, tipping points are thought to arise from a loss of stability of an equilibrium when external conditions are slowly varied. However, this appealingly simple view puts us on the wrong foot for understanding a range of abrupt transitions in the climate or ecosystems because complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium. In particular, they are forced by diurnal variations, the seasons, Milankovitch cycles and internal climate oscillations. Here we show how abrupt and sometimes even irreversible change may be evoked by even small shifts in the amplitude or time scale of such environmental oscillations. By using model simulations and reconciling evidence from previous studies we illustrate how these phenomena can be relevant for ecosystems and elements of the climate system including terrestrial ecosystems, Arctic sea ice and monsoons. Although the systems we address are very different and span a broad range of time scales, the phenomena can be understood in a common framework that can help clarify and unify the interpretation of abrupt shifts in the Earth system.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Flibble said:
robinessex said:
Typical post Durbster, it's bloody obvious what it shows, which is why you don't like it. PLANET TEMPERATURE AND CO2 HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN, AND DON'T FOLLOW EACH OTHER.
They look fairly well correlated in that graph. An even stronger correlation...... but.... there is that whole causation thing...
He was saying that they're not correlated though, which they clearly are.
kerplunk said:
err no, it isn't just about temperature. I think you should just go and read up on abrupt climate change. I don't have much time right now but here's a paper picked off google page 1 search for 'abrupt climate change' as an example of what I think the IPCC statement is talking about.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23377-4
abstract
The notion that small changes can have large consequences in the climate or ecosystems has become popular as the concept of tipping points. Typically, tipping points are thought to arise from a loss of stability of an equilibrium when external conditions are slowly varied. However, this appealingly simple view puts us on the wrong foot for understanding a range of abrupt transitions in the climate or ecosystems because complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium. In particular, they are forced by diurnal variations, the seasons, Milankovitch cycles and internal climate oscillations. Here we show how abrupt and sometimes even irreversible change may be evoked by even small shifts in the amplitude or time scale of such environmental oscillations. By using model simulations and reconciling evidence from previous studies we illustrate how these phenomena can be relevant for ecosystems and elements of the climate system including terrestrial ecosystems, Arctic sea ice and monsoons. Although the systems we address are very different and span a broad range of time scales, the phenomena can be understood in a common framework that can help clarify and unify the interpretation of abrupt shifts in the Earth system.
That paper does seem to pose more questions than provide answers, however is does nicely illustrate that the original statement is true in the same way that it is true that everyone reading this thread will die. This sounds dramatic and while factual is useless information because no specifics are provided.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23377-4
abstract
The notion that small changes can have large consequences in the climate or ecosystems has become popular as the concept of tipping points. Typically, tipping points are thought to arise from a loss of stability of an equilibrium when external conditions are slowly varied. However, this appealingly simple view puts us on the wrong foot for understanding a range of abrupt transitions in the climate or ecosystems because complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium. In particular, they are forced by diurnal variations, the seasons, Milankovitch cycles and internal climate oscillations. Here we show how abrupt and sometimes even irreversible change may be evoked by even small shifts in the amplitude or time scale of such environmental oscillations. By using model simulations and reconciling evidence from previous studies we illustrate how these phenomena can be relevant for ecosystems and elements of the climate system including terrestrial ecosystems, Arctic sea ice and monsoons. Although the systems we address are very different and span a broad range of time scales, the phenomena can be understood in a common framework that can help clarify and unify the interpretation of abrupt shifts in the Earth system.
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
err no, it isn't just about temperature. I think you should just go and read up on abrupt climate change. I don't have much time right now but here's a paper picked off google page 1 search for 'abrupt climate change' as an example of what I think the IPCC statement is talking about.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23377-4
abstract
The notion that small changes can have large consequences in the climate or ecosystems has become popular as the concept of tipping points. Typically, tipping points are thought to arise from a loss of stability of an equilibrium when external conditions are slowly varied. However, this appealingly simple view puts us on the wrong foot for understanding a range of abrupt transitions in the climate or ecosystems because complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium. In particular, they are forced by diurnal variations, the seasons, Milankovitch cycles and internal climate oscillations. Here we show how abrupt and sometimes even irreversible change may be evoked by even small shifts in the amplitude or time scale of such environmental oscillations. By using model simulations and reconciling evidence from previous studies we illustrate how these phenomena can be relevant for ecosystems and elements of the climate system including terrestrial ecosystems, Arctic sea ice and monsoons. Although the systems we address are very different and span a broad range of time scales, the phenomena can be understood in a common framework that can help clarify and unify the interpretation of abrupt shifts in the Earth system.
That paper does seem to pose more questions than provide answers, however is does nicely illustrate that the original statement is true in the same way that it is true that everyone reading this thread will die. This sounds dramatic and while factual is useless information because no specifics are provided.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23377-4
abstract
The notion that small changes can have large consequences in the climate or ecosystems has become popular as the concept of tipping points. Typically, tipping points are thought to arise from a loss of stability of an equilibrium when external conditions are slowly varied. However, this appealingly simple view puts us on the wrong foot for understanding a range of abrupt transitions in the climate or ecosystems because complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium. In particular, they are forced by diurnal variations, the seasons, Milankovitch cycles and internal climate oscillations. Here we show how abrupt and sometimes even irreversible change may be evoked by even small shifts in the amplitude or time scale of such environmental oscillations. By using model simulations and reconciling evidence from previous studies we illustrate how these phenomena can be relevant for ecosystems and elements of the climate system including terrestrial ecosystems, Arctic sea ice and monsoons. Although the systems we address are very different and span a broad range of time scales, the phenomena can be understood in a common framework that can help clarify and unify the interpretation of abrupt shifts in the Earth system.
You get that the IPCC statement isn't about 'runaway warming' now hopefully - job done.
kerplunk said:
My intention wasn't to discuss this specific paper (I haven't read it beyond the abstract).
You get that the IPCC statement isn't about 'runaway warming' now hopefully - job done.
Yes, now I am on solid ground to call bullsYou get that the IPCC statement isn't about 'runaway warming' now hopefully - job done.
t and that is not what the science says when it is trotted out.Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
My intention wasn't to discuss this specific paper (I haven't read it beyond the abstract).
You get that the IPCC statement isn't about 'runaway warming' now hopefully - job done.
Yes, now I am on solid ground to call bullsYou get that the IPCC statement isn't about 'runaway warming' now hopefully - job done.
t and that is not what the science says when it is trotted out.Tip - try actually reading the IPCC reports to avoid misrepresenting what they say (since you doth loathe misrepresentation greatly).
kerplunk said:
Oh well that's good then (I think).
Tip - try actually reading the IPCC reports to avoid misrepresenting what they say (since you doth loathe misrepresentation greatly).
When the media misrepresent the IPCC summaries of what the science says you mean?Tip - try actually reading the IPCC reports to avoid misrepresenting what they say (since you doth loathe misrepresentation greatly).
Of course I loathe misrepresentation of science for political purposes.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff