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]

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.