Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
Ludo And LoonyTunes
You both seem to be missing my point. Maybe that is my fault.
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change. That is a risk we need to accept if we live on this planet.
That is not a good argument. Just because climate changes naturally and we have to adapt to that, which often has involved high cost (c.f. change in north African climate IIRC about 6,000 years ago), doesn't mean there is no problem for us to cause climate change now.You both seem to be missing my point. Maybe that is my fault.
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change. That is a risk we need to accept if we live on this planet.
Kawasicki said:
You seem to think because we are now so numerous that we are more susceptible to climate change. That is true, though I don’t understand why it is relevant, it doesn’t take away anything from my point above.
Simple, because if climate change reduces our ability to feed ourselves, some people may starve to death. You may think that is O.K., personally I think it is something we should avoid. Of course those most likely to starve are not those that contributed most to the climate change, so there is an ethical aspect to this as well (but that is for the politics thread).Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
Building Design and Earthquakes?
Logical fallacy: False equivalence.
Disagree also.Logical fallacy: False equivalence.
My point was that just because there were no humans around to suffer from the strong earthquakes, doesn’t mean that building design should only take account of the recent weaker earthquakes.
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change.
Not in the Holocene it hasn't and you've already agreed that's the case. Ex of AGW there's no good reason that I'm aware of to expect rapid climate for millennia - the current interglacial is expected to continue for a good while yet and the transition from interglacial to glacial is slow not rapid.
wc98 said:
ludo said:
I'm afraid a lot of genuine skeptics would agree with what LoonyTunes said, as pointed out by Fred Singer in his article "Climate Deniers are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name". If you really want to marginalise climate skeptics from having any real influence on the debate, then you could do no better than to cling on to the scientifically illiterate canards that continually circulate in forums like this (even after they have been shown to be wrong, on numerous occasions, e.g. residence time), and then bluster back to politics and conspiracy ideation when the science gets too tough.
good to see you have run out of better things to do and returned. nice try on the residence time, only works if you ignore subsequent posts on the topic.ludo said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change.
Not in the Holocene it hasn't and you've already agreed that's the case. Ex of AGW there's no good reason that I'm aware of to expect rapid climate for millennia - the current interglacial is expected to continue for a good while yet and the transition from interglacial to glacial is slow not rapid.
Kawasicki said:
ludo said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change.
Not in the Holocene it hasn't and you've already agreed that's the case. Ex of AGW there's no good reason that I'm aware of to expect rapid climate for millennia - the current interglacial is expected to continue for a good while yet and the transition from interglacial to glacial is slow not rapid.
mko9 said:
Kawasicki said:
ludo said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change.
Not in the Holocene it hasn't and you've already agreed that's the case. Ex of AGW there's no good reason that I'm aware of to expect rapid climate for millennia - the current interglacial is expected to continue for a good while yet and the transition from interglacial to glacial is slow not rapid.
Kawasicki said:
I don’t know how you can make such a definitive statement. The only data with high enough temporal resolution is from the polar regions.
It is no more definitive than your claimKawasicki said:
Actually the Holocene has had both warmer periods and faster rates of temperature change than we are currently experiencing, so no, you’re wrong.
AFAICS, what evidence we do have suggests that there has not been a faster rate of global warming, so your claim does not extend beyond regional (which is why I gave that caveat when I first mentioned it, it is a shame that you don't add the caveat to your claim)Edited by ludo on Wednesday 20th March 09:18
mko9 said:
Kawasicki said:
ludo said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
The earth, as we know it, has a history of rapid climate change.
Not in the Holocene it hasn't and you've already agreed that's the case. Ex of AGW there's no good reason that I'm aware of to expect rapid climate for millennia - the current interglacial is expected to continue for a good while yet and the transition from interglacial to glacial is slow not rapid.
They key point is the change, not the temperature itself (at least on centennial scales). Agriculture and civilisation are adapted to exploit a particular climate, change the climate and re-adaption is required, which has a cost. If the environment is exploited to its limits, e.g. by supporting a very high population density, that adaption may not be feasible. Adaption is much easier when population density was lower (e.g. Medieval or Roman times) and the natural environment less depleted of resources.
Edited by ludo on Wednesday 20th March 09:42
ludo said:
Kawasicki said:
I don’t know how you can make such a definitive statement. The only data with high enough temporal resolution is from the polar regions.
It is no more definitive than your claimKawasicki said:
Actually the Holocene has had both warmer periods and faster rates of temperature change than we are currently experiencing, so no, you’re wrong.
AFAICS, what evidence we do have suggests that there has not been a faster rate of global warming, so your claim does not extend beyond regional (which is why I gave that caveat when I first mentioned it, it is a shame that you don't add the caveat to your claim)Edited by ludo on Wednesday 20th March 09:18
Where is the evidence to suggest the current global warming rate is unusual?
Kawasicki said:
The only data we have with high enough temporal resolution to allow a comparison to the current warming rate is from ice cores.
Where is the evidence to suggest the current global warming rate is unusual?
You are ignoring the other proxy data (note Marcott is not the only proxy reconstruction). Note this time (taking into account your previous comments), I just pointed out that the proxy data do not suggest that there have been previous occasions where there has been faster warming (your claim), rather than that they suggest there has not been previous occasions where there has been faster warming.Where is the evidence to suggest the current global warming rate is unusual?
We know (due to polar amplification) that ice cores are not directly indicative of global temperatures which is why I made that caveat when I brought them up
I have to say, I personally don't think it is terribly important whether the warming is unprecedented or whether it has happened naturally before (if you go back far enough, it undoubtedly has). What actually matters is what warming we are likely to see as a result of our GHG emissions (also taking aerosols etc into account), which is a scientific question, and whether we can adapt to it or should mitigate against it (which is an economic and political question). The thing past climate change tells us is that the climate system is sensitive to relatively small changes in forcing (e.g. Milankovic, GHG concentratons etc.) which means that we should expect it to be sensitive to the forcings we are applying now. If climate was very variable in the past, that suggest we should be wary of applying substantial forcing to it today, rather than that it isn't a potential problem.
ludo said:
I have to say, I personally don't think it is terribly important whether the warming is unprecedented or whether it has happened naturally before (if you go back far enough, it undoubtedly has). What actually matters is what warming we are likely to see as a result of our GHG emissions (also taking aerosols etc into account), which is a scientific question, and whether we can adapt to it or should mitigate against it (which is an economic and political question). The thing past climate change tells us is that the climate system is sensitive to relatively small changes in forcing (e.g. Milankovic, GHG concentratons etc.) which means that we should expect it to be sensitive to the forcings we are applying now. If climate was very variable in the past, that suggest we should be wary of applying substantial forcing to it today, rather than that it isn't a potential problem.
Good post and a good argument.The forcing we apply might not be as substantial as claimed though. There are a lot of assumptions and omissions from the theory that human sourced CO2 is now the dominant cause of all climate change on earth. The idea that we think it is because we can’t see any other forcing doesn’t convince me.
Kawasicki said:
Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?
My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
Kawasicki said:
ludo said:
I have to say, I personally don't think it is terribly important whether the warming is unprecedented or whether it has happened naturally before (if you go back far enough, it undoubtedly has). What actually matters is what warming we are likely to see as a result of our GHG emissions (also taking aerosols etc into account), which is a scientific question, and whether we can adapt to it or should mitigate against it (which is an economic and political question). The thing past climate change tells us is that the climate system is sensitive to relatively small changes in forcing (e.g. Milankovic, GHG concentratons etc.) which means that we should expect it to be sensitive to the forcings we are applying now. If climate was very variable in the past, that suggest we should be wary of applying substantial forcing to it today, rather than that it isn't a potential problem.
Good post and a good argument.The forcing we apply might not be as substantial as claimed though. There are a lot of assumptions and omissions from the theory that human sourced CO2 is now the dominant cause of all climate change on earth. The idea that we think it is because we can’t see any other forcing doesn’t convince me.
You can always posit some imaginary forcing that we don't know about and haven't observed, but unless you have a physical mechanism for it, that isn't science.
Edited by ludo on Thursday 21st March 08:05
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?
My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?
My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
This just took a surreal turn.
Earthquakes do not make a good analogy for AGW.
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?
My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
LoonyTunes said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?
My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
This just took a surreal turn.
Earthquakes do not make a good analogy for AGW.
ludo said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Let me put it like this. I ask you to design a building in an earthquake prone area. In the last 40 years there has been 2 magnitude 4 earthquakes. 500, 1000 and 15000 years ago there were magnitude 9 earthquakes. Would you say the magnitude 9 earthquakes should be ignored because the area was not populated then, and nobody was injured?
My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
The obvious failure in the analogy being that we can't see earthquakes coming.My logic is that whether or not the area was populated in the past is irrelevant to the current earthquake risk.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff