150 Years of Climate Change

[peristaltor]

"Thus, the bold and beautiful speculation has been made an experimental fact."

So said John Tyndale almost 150 years ago. What speculation did he demonstrate as fact? Global warming:

On 10 June, Tyndall demonstrated his experiments before a packed meeting at the Royal Institution, with Albert the prince consort in the chair. "To the eye, the

Comments

[peristaltor]

You don't seem to understand where your faith and assumptions are filling in the gaps.

I actually laughed at that. Accusing me of faith is similar to accusing a bald man of being shaggy. My assumptions are based as much as they can be on verifiable research and conclusions from multiple sources.

. . . isn't this a mechanistic ecological perspective?

Yep. I'm all about mechanistic views of reality. Complexity doesn't have much to do with the current situation. Very simply, we have gases in our atmosphere that retain heat more readily than they used to. The complexity comes in trying to predict what will happen next. . . which will happen next whether or not our models are accurate.

Your link fails simply because it falls far short of hubris. Basic research will turn up flaws in the research models. This is to be expected. Note the article didn't disprove Tyndale's research at all, but merely noted the difficulty of modeling the changes carboniferous gas releases might cause. Furthermore, most of the modeling shows that the results of ramping up carbon concentrations will be far worse that previously thought.

Carbon release was not done with evil intent, but rather to improve lives. For this hubris we will experience changes, perhaps disastrous ones. We should not ignore evidence simply because we don't care to face challenges to our present worldviews.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Accusing me of faith is similar to accusing a bald man of being shaggy. My assumptions are based as much as they can be on verifiable research and conclusions from multiple sources.

It sounds as though you're lying to yourself. Your view of reality, like everyone's, is rooted in assumptions, theories and faith. If you think otherwise, either you don't understand what you're talking about or you're deceiving yourself. How many assumptions are implicit within you eating dinner at a restaurant? Do you base your worldview on white or black swans?

Have you had any introduction to general semantics?

Complexity doesn't have much to do with the current situation.

More assumptions and more faith.

Very simply, we have gases in our atmosphere that retain heat more readily than they used to.

Really? How high is the atmosphere ceiling used in climate models? How many parts-per-million increase are we looking at since the industrial revolution?

[peristaltor]

Of all the silliness, this is the only portion worthy of response:

How high is the atmosphere ceiling used in climate models? How many parts-per-million increase are we looking at since the industrial revolution?

Of the two questions, only the second is (to me) of significant import. Why? We can see (through paleolithic examination of leaf stomata) how much CO2 tends to be present when certain plants tend to be dominant in which climate. Based on this, we can extrapolate the temperatures of the regions being examined.

Why is this important? Because we tend to eat. We like it when our food crops can thrive.

That is all.

The rest is just educated guesswork, nothing more.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Of all the silliness, this is the only portion worthy of response:

Then I can only assume you have not had any substantive introduction to general semantics. Furthermore, through your repeatedly closed transactional style, I can also assume that you've not had any formal introduction to communication theory, either. This lack of critical engagement with your communication methods leads me to suspect there's little value in conducting this form of conversation with you. It's a classic example of the tendency described in Tavris & Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

I encourage you to reassess your assumptions, but I see little evidence of a willingness to do so. Your disposition seems very tied to preserving white swans.

Of the two questions, only the second is (to me) of significant import. Why? We can see (through paleolithic examination of leaf stomata) how much CO2 tends to be present when certain plants tend to be dominant in which climate. Based on this, we can extrapolate the temperatures of the regions being examined.

You've deflected the substance of the question with non sequitur. Asking about ppm has many other implications than leaf stomata. In addition, I'm guessing you don't know how high the atmosphere ceiling is in climate models. If you did, you might think it a little more relevant. And your dismissal of complexity appears altogether comical in light of current theoretical trends. Adding to the list of assumptions I can make about you through your avoidance of substantive issues, I'd guess you've never formally studied complexity theory.

The rest is just educated guesswork, nothing more.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much "education" in your guesswork, but perhaps this instance is unique. Maybe you'll see through your folly at some point.

[peristaltor]

Then I can only assume you have not had any substantive introduction to general semantics.

Quite true. Nor do I have much formal education in communication theory. These fields, though, have very little to do with paleontology, climatology, paleobotony . . . you know, the stuff that proves quite important in climate change. While I have little formal training in these fields, I have enough of a generalist's grasp of them to get a very general picture of what might happen in the near future. For example:

Asking about ppm has many other implications than leaf stomata.

This is not a non-sequitur. Leaf stomata is a pretty good indicator of carbon concentration, allowing researchers to estimate ppm in ancient times without going back in time with a gas analyzer. Thus, leaf stomata examination is discussing ppm.

I have read ppm numbers before, especially as correlated with past climate, but am out-of-state right now and using a friend's computer, so my reference books aren't at hand. Of those books, I would highly recommend Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky, which discusses the progression of the science determining the causes of past extinctions and the relationship sudden ppm carbon spikes might have had on those extinctions. That book more than any other (and some supporting material outlining the methodology Ward and those he quotes employs) should be discussed by the general media. (I discussed Ward's findings here.(

It is not being discussed. This (IMHO) is why I keep having conversations like this.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

There have been a number of dangling tangents during this conversation, but I currently have a very limited amount of disposable time to invest in matters outside of class assignments and professional obligations. That isn't intended as an insult to you or dismissal of the subject. I'd actually much rather engage in a systematic evaluation, in the hope that greater clarity could be achieved for both of us. However, in the absence of that disposable time, I'm limited to prioritizing concepts.

Here's a black swan for you: "Current CO2 levels are at the low end of the scale when viewed in a historical perspective. CO2 is presently only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Natural water vapor causes 95% of the greenhouse effect. Claims that 'today's CO2 level is the highest ever' are flat out lies, and they indicate the speaker has no knowledge of Earth's proven climate history." (link)

[peristaltor]

I agree that the discussion is tedious unless the participants share the same data. You're busy, I'm out-of-state, so we agree to disagree for the moment.

The quote you supplied, though, came with a nice comment near the end: ". . . there are a small portion of scientists who do deny the global warming theory, but they are not denying that it is warming. They are instead denying that the warming is substantially do (sic) to man."

The more I read from folks who deny the carbon increase theory, the more I read people who dance around the data because this one aspect, that the warming is due to human activity, somehow really galls them. It's weird, really. I absolutely do not understand that mindset.

After all, dig up carbon fuel that took a few hundred million years to accumulate underground and burn it in 150 years, I think one would expect some effect. It turns out there is, given the vast preponderance of evidence, a strong case to be made for such an effect. . . which will take place whether or not folks choose to believe it's happening or not.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Hrm... it seems your assumptions and prejudices are very deeply entrenched. Now it becomes even more difficult to rationalize investing time in discussing this issue with you in this way.

I invite you to explore the basis of your assumptions. Reading a few popular books won't suffice.

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

BTW - I'm NOT unilaterally discounting anthropogenic factors to climate change. If that somehow catches you as dissonant, then you've a fine example of your assumptions filling in the blanks.

[peristaltor]

Would unpopular books be a better source? ;-)

As to entrenchment, I think (given the extent this comment thread has dragged on) both of us have invested significant time and research in forming our positions. I'm cool with my investment.

[peristaltor]

I took another look at this Dr. Goldstein post again. I like this nugget:

The belief that "humans can control the climate" is based on both undeserved bravado regarding human capabilities, and complete disregard of the known climate history. Anybody who believes that new taxes will create a stable climate is kidding themselves.

I am willing to put down money that the last sentence spells out the entire reason that post was made. He sounds like the recently greenwashed NRSP, a group that, for some reason, poked around LJ a few years ago trying to spread the same kind of misinformation that Dr. G. is trying now in TPM.