Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 12078
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

viewtopic.php?p=116739#p116739
Bootstrap wrote:It's just possible that the three graphs I posted contain hard facts that contradict your position on things. Feel free to discuss them if you want to. To me, at least, they seem to show that the IPCC has accurately predicted the last 20 years. If I'm missing something, a discussion about the data is probably the best way to show me that.
20 years of temperature does not really tell us much. The earth is coming out of a ice age, so it is normal for it to warm. Showing it is warming and blaming it on humanity ignores millions of years of history. We are in a normal natural cycle of warming.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Using it forces a political discussion.

Pulling out 20 years to validate a point is like me using the past week to validate that it is getting colder. It ignores the bigger picture of what is going on.

Image

Image
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
ohio jones

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by ohio jones »

temporal1 wrote:People don’t appreciate being railroaded.
Some of us are doing what we can to promote passenger rail. ;)
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:viewtopic.php?p=116739#p116739
Bootstrap wrote:It's just possible that the three graphs I posted contain hard facts that contradict your position on things. Feel free to discuss them if you want to. To me, at least, they seem to show that the IPCC has accurately predicted the last 20 years. If I'm missing something, a discussion about the data is probably the best way to show me that.
20 years of temperature does not really tell us much.
The first IPCC report was in 1990. My post looked at IPCC predictions, comparing them to measured temperatures since then. Predictions, by definition, are about the future, not the past. The best way to model predictions is to see how well they predict future behavoior.

Here are the graphs again:
Bootstrap wrote:Suppose we aren't all experts on the many areas of science involved in the IPCC reports. We can still look back to past predictions, see how much warming they predicted, and compare that to measured results. We can use the simplest measurements possible.

Here's one article that does just that.

Let's look at just the IPCC reports that are at least 20 years old. Here they are:

Image

Image

Image

Note that each image shows multiple models and the consensus prediction. To me, at least, it looks like the predictions of global climate warming track pretty well with measured data in the time since then.

Am I missing something?
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Using it forces a political discussion.
The bulk of the IPCC reports are systematic scientific literature reviews prepared by scientists. Actually using the IPCC reports as a basis would force a scientific discussion, looking at the data behind their conclusions.

As they say on their website:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.
These are scientific assessments prepared for people who are not necessarily scientists. But the Working Group reports are heavy going for anyone who does not have some background in science.
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:Pulling out 20 years to validate a point is like me using the past week to validate that it is getting colder. It ignores the bigger picture of what is going on.
Well, the IPCC did not make any predictions before 1990, so I cannot evaluate how well their forecasrts predicted the ice age. I don't think that's cherry-picking.

But these models are based on past data going way back. You provided an image taken from a paper that does just that:

Image

Here is the article that paper was taken from:

Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth's paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations. which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.
I think this part of the article is relevant:
Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have been unusually stable. Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago) and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.

The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient — it is a prescription for disaster. Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us to introduce powerful climate forcings such as atmospheric CO2 with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend — it means that we are building in changes for future generations that will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.
Even though you used that graph, you seem to reach different conclusions than the scientists who produced it. You say you want to have a scientific discussion rather than a political one, can you explain what they got wrong about the science and why I should believe you have a better grasp on this than they do?
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:Image
This image comes from the following article:

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages - What Are They and What Causes Them?

The article is not about climate change, but it does not question climate change.

The things scientists claim are causing global warming started with the Industrial Age. It's hard to even see the industrial age on that graph because of the long time scale. But off on the right you see the last 3 million years. Human beings probably were not around 3 million years ago. If global warming affects human civilization, it affects the way we have lived on a much shorter time scale than that.

If we suddenly had temperatures like those we had 100 million years ago, that change would affect the way we live today.
0 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 12078
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Every warming peroid was caused by Malencivick cycles. They all showed sharp, fast warming periods. We are still 5 degrees C colder then the mean temperature of the planet through history. 10 degrees colder than the Jurassic.

How is discussion of ice ages NOT about climate? Temperature is part of climate.
Bootstrap wrote:Even though you used that graph, you seem to reach different conclusions than the scientists who produced it.
What did i get wrong? I don't see it.
Bootstrap wrote:The bulk of the IPCC reports are systematic scientific literature reviews prepared by scientists. Actually using the IPCC reports as a basis would force a scientific discussion, looking at the data behind their conclusions.
Climategate totally soured me and I have no faith or trust int he IPCC, just as you do not trust the Heritage Foundation since they supported tobacco 50 years ago.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 12078
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Big government at its finest.

https://www.independentsentinel.com/epa ... he-crisis/
“Once it was clear that the polar vortex would engulf the entire state of [Texas Gov. Greg Abbott] declared an emergency and asked President* Biden for an EPA waiver to allow power generation facilities to operate at full capacity until the emergency passed.”

“Biden’s EPA refused Governor Abbott’s request and instead offered to allow certain power generation facilities a waiver if they raised the prices they charged to Texans to more than $1,500/MWh resulting in massive statewide power outages and a failure of the grid.”
11/ While we lost much of our renewable supply (wind and solar) our natural gas and coal are required to operate at 60% capacity to reduce emissions. They CAN operate at 100% if they get a waiver from the federal government (as Abbott requested). Biden refused...
The worst part was the $1500 was a totally artificial price designed to deter use. It is all about reducing pollution. In a time of crisis let generators sell at normal prices...
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Bootstrap

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:Every warming period was caused by Malencivick cycles. They all showed sharp, fast warming periods. We are still 5 degrees C colder then the mean temperature of the planet through history. 10 degrees colder than the Jurassic.

How is discussion of ice ages NOT about climate? Temperature is part of climate.
You don't seem to be responding to anything I said here. I really would find it helpful if you would start by making sure you understand what I am saying before "refuting" it. That would make it a lot easier to have a scientific conversation.

In fact, I recently quoted this:
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth's paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations. which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.
We need both historical data and modern measurements to make sense of what is going on. Here is a paragraph that relates the two:
Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have been unusually stable.
So the climate we have had during the last 10,000 years is the most familiar for human beings who live on earth today. It hasn't been a particularly friendly climate for dinosaurs, but it has been for human beings.

What were the sea levels when the temperature was higher in the past?
Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago) and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.

That's not the end of the world as we know it, but that would have a significant impact on the coastal areas where a large percent of human beings live.
Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Even though you used that graph, you seem to reach different conclusions than the scientists who produced it.
What did i get wrong? I don't see it.
I mentioned some of it above. Here's another thing mentioned in that article:
Figure 2 shows that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing mass at significant rates, as much as a few hundred cubic kilometers per year. We suggest that mass loss from disintegrating ice sheets probably can be approximated better by exponential mass loss than by linear mass loss. If either ice sheet were to lose mass at a rate with doubling time of 10 years or less, multi-meter sea level rise would occur this century.
So I don't think the graph you quoted shows these fears are unjustified. The people who produced it thought it was part of the big picture showing that there is reason to be concerned. I don't think you have addressed their data or the claims they are making.
Last edited by Bootstrap on Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Using it forces a political discussion.
What if we simply agreed not to bring politics into the discussion at all and focus on the science behind the three graphs I presented? You have brought in quite a few political things, some not terribly related to climate change, I think that's a distraction.

Since you object to making this political, let's see if we can focus on the science.
Robert wrote:Climategate totally soured me and I have no faith or trust int he IPCC, just as you do not trust the Heritage Foundation since they supported tobacco 50 years ago.
I think you are conflating the Heritage Foundation with the Heartland Institute. I respect the Heritage Foundation much more than I respect the Heartland Institute. I also think you are conflating the IPCC and the CRU. But no need to straighten out the political players, why not focus on the data instead?

So far, I don't understand how anything you have presented addresses the three graphs I showed. I think you were implying that these graphs refuted the graphs I showed. I don't think the people who created them would agree. What am I missing?
0 x
Post Reply