“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[TordelBack]

I don't believe carbon is accelerating climate change. (The end-Ordovician (Hirnantian) Ice Age, 440 million years ago, began when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm and lasted a few million years.  At the end of that time, with 85% of marine life extinct, when the frigid oceans had gobbled up atmospheric CO2 to around 3,000 ppm, the globe suddenly began to warm up. In 2015, CO2 in the atmosphere was around a measly 400 ppm.)

The problem is that I don't understand the significance of those figures and NEITHER DO YOU. The people who DO understand whether that's a valid comparison or a boneheaded misinterpretation of the statistics are people who've spent years at university studying this stuff, and when the vast majority of them agree that you're wrong, I'm going to believe them.

This, this, this, this is literally the root of the whole thing.

Of course everyone is entitled, exhorted even, to investigate the evidence and come to their own conclusions, but equally we need to assign different weights to those conclusions based on the experience (and perhaps the associations) of the holder, simply because for most of us there is no realistic way of acquiring the necessary expertise and expending the necessary time: to some extent we have to listen to the consensus of those who have.

[Jim_Campbell]

This, this, this, this is literally the root of the whole thing.

YES.

See also, my repeated rants about the internet encouraging the idea that all opinions are both equal and sacrosanct.

You (abstract you, not actual you, TB) absolutely have the right to hold a stupid opinion but I (non-abstract me) have the right to point and laugh and advance arguments as to why your (abstract your) opinion is stupid.

Non-Abstract: Shark, do you also dispute the basic chemistry of CO₂'s role in ocean acidification? If so, on what grounds? If not, please explain why either: 1) the extinction of hundreds of pH sensitive organisms is not a problem, or 2) how a catastrophic collapse in the oceanic food chain will have no negative effects on the ability of the human race to feed itself.

Jim

[Hawkmumbler]

This, this, this, this is literally the root of the whole thing.

YES.

See also, my repeated rants about the internet encouraging the idea that all opinions are both equal and sacrosanct.

You (abstract you, not actual you, TB) absolutely have the right to hold a stupid opinion but I (non-abstract me) have the right to point and laugh and advance arguments as to why your (abstract your) opinion is stupid.

Non-Abstract: Shark, do you also dispute the basic chemistry of CO₂'s role in ocean acidification? If so, on what grounds? If not, please explain why either: 1) the extinction of hundreds of pH sensitive organisms is not a problem, or 2) how a catastrophic collapse in the oceanic food chain will have no negative effects on the ability of the human race to feed itself.

Jim

I can vouch for this. In the last 5 years i've visted the Great Barrier Reef twice. In 2011 it was, in my eyes anyway, a heaven for corels. 3 years later many of these spots where habited only by bleached, dead corels over exposed to water Ph approaching moderate alkaline. It's a very, very real problem as without corels the entire global ecosystem will suffer.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Of course everyone is entitled, exhorted even, to investigate the evidence and come to their own conclusions

The problem is, parroting observations and conclusions from articles you have found on google is not scientific research. This kind of thing, rife with confirmation bias, dominates mainstream scientific discourse.

[Dark Jimbo]

All I can think of is this when I read Sharky's posts:

[IndigoPrime]

I love that cartoon, but it's a pity that idiot in the crowd is 90 per cent of politicians. She might be at the other extreme, but we need more people like Caroline Lucas in positions of actual power, to have any hope for our descendants.

[GordonR]

I love that cartoon, but it's a pity that idiot in the crowd is 90 per cent of politicians. She might be at the other extreme, but we need more people like Caroline Lucas in positions of actual power, to have any hope for our descendants.

I'm by no means anti-Green, but by all accounts they made a spectacular hash out of their one term in control of Brighton.  If they can't run a town council, I'm not sure I'd let them loose on a global crisis.

[IndigoPrime]

I'm by no means anti-Green, but by all accounts they made a spectacular hash out of their one term in control of Brighton.

Of the people I know who live there, many (including voters of other parties) seemed broadly fine with the city council, and it'll be interesting to see if the new lot do any better.

But my point was specifically about people like Lucas, not the Green Party. She's forward-thinking, actually gives a shit, and is a bloody good MP.

[The Legendary Shark]

Climate change is multi-factorial, obviously. But the extremely rapid increase in global temperatures over the last century coincides with extremely rapid increase in carbon dioxide, one of the atmospheric components known to absorb and radiate long wavelength radiation. Thus there is a mechanism that plausibly assigns causation to this correlation.

The causes of the major glacial periods is a matter of much debate, especially the Late Ordovician (orbital/axial variations, landmass/current distribution, vulcanism etc). But I would imagine that if there was somehow paleoclimatological evidence for the kind of extraordinarily rapid change in atmospheric CO2 in conjunction with temperature change that we are experiencing now, we'd be looking very seriously at that.

Yes, I agree - climate change is multi-factoral, that's partially my point. Yet the populist argument is that it's just CO2. I would take issue with the claim that temperature rises have been extremely rapid over the last century - since 1880, the average temperature has risen by ~0.8C (an average of ~0.0059C/year). Between ~800 and ~850 (the Medieval Warm Period), temperatures rose by ~0.3C (an average of ~0.006C/year). Between 1400 and 1600 (The Little Ice Age), temperatures dropped by ~0.7C (an average of ~-0.0035C/year). There is nothing particularly rapid, unusual or catastrophic about current temperature trends. The fact that the current warming period coincides with an atmospheric CO2 level of around ~400ppm is interesting, but the two comparative fluctuations mentioned above both occurred with a quite stable CO2 level of around 280ppm, with no significant fluctuations coincidental with those temperature changes. If CO2 is the sole driver if climate change today, it must have driven climate change back then as well - somehow without changing its concentration.

Then there's evidence from the Dome-Concordia ice core temperature reconstructions, stretching back 740,000 years, showing "clearly that temperature variation precedes CO2 change by >700 years on a sustained basis." This suggests that atmospheric CO2 is more of a temperature regulator than a temperature driver. Then there's the correlation between global temperatures and cosmic rays, which looks pretty good to my untrained eye.

Overview, around 500 million years of temperature and CO2:

[1]

[2]

Whilst there are correlations between these two graphs (note the reversed axis on graph 2), they are not exact and contain at least one clear anomaly. Climate scientists are so far unable to account for this, although it has been suggested that the sun's output was 4% less at the time of the O/S Ice Age anomaly might be a factor. This is another indication that it's not just CO2 driving climate change.

The problem is that I don't understand the significance of those figures and NEITHER DO YOU. The people who DO understand whether that's a valid comparison or a boneheaded misinterpretation of the statistics are people who've spent years at university studying this stuff, and when the vast majority of them agree that you're wrong, I'm going to believe them.

You're right, in a sense. I'm not a scientist and I don't understand the scientific significance of those figures. The point is, neither do the people who've spent years at university studying this stuff. They can't explain it using current CO2 climate driver science. So yes, believe them by all means - although I would suggest that just because the vast majority hold an opinion, that doesn't make it true. The significance of those figures to me is that the science, contrary to popular belief, is not settled.

This, this, this, this is literally the root of the whole thing.

Of course everyone is entitled, exhorted even, to investigate the evidence and come to their own conclusions, but equally we need to assign different weights to those conclusions based on the experience (and perhaps the associations) of the holder, simply because for most of us there is no realistic way of acquiring the necessary expertise and expending the necessary time: to some extent we have to listen to the consensus of those who have.

I agree. Wholeheartedly. There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarmism. I can only speculate as to why "governments" and the mainstream media ignore them. Surely not all those people who've spent years at university studying this stuff, writing these papers and getting them peer-reviewed can be crackpots?

Non-Abstract: Shark, do you also dispute the basic chemistry of CO2's role in ocean acidification? If so, on what grounds? If not, please explain why either: 1) the extinction of hundreds of pH sensitive organisms is not a problem, or 2) how a catastrophic collapse in the oceanic food chain will have no negative effects on the ability of the human race to feed itself.

Jim

No, Jim, I don't didpute the basic chemistry of CO2 and ocean acidification. I actually mentioned this very thing earlier. However, like most alarmist arguments, the acidification of the oceans might not be such a big problem in the medium to long term. I would suggest you read this document, written by an actual science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, and then maybe we can debate its contents later.

I can vouch for this. In the last 5 years i've visted the Great Barrier Reef twice. In 2011 it was, in my eyes anyway, a heaven for corels. 3 years later many of these spots where habited only by bleached, dead corels over exposed to water Ph approaching moderate alkaline. It's a very, very real problem as without corels the entire global ecosystem will suffer.

Whilst I am neither blind nor unsympathetic to natural tragedies such as this, the decline of the Great Barrier Reef cannot be laid exclusively at the feet of climate change - though I'm sure it is a factor. According to Wikipedia, the major culprits are agricultural chemicals, sediments, mining pollution, waste dumping, overfishing, shipping and oil.

The problem is, parroting observations and conclusions from articles you have found on google is not scientific research. This kind of thing, rife with confirmation bias, dominates mainstream scientific discourse.

As opposed to parroting observations and conclusions from articles and reports on the entirely unbiased BBC and from scrupulously honest politicians? And of course it's not scientific research - I'm not a scientist - but wherever possible I do try to look at the research and opinions of scientists and researchers instead of reporters and MPs. And no, I don't understand it all - but then again, who does?

Sorry for the long post but you all gave me a big test!



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

[Professor Bear]

Yes, I agree - climate change is multi-factoral, that's partially my point. Yet the populist argument is that it's just CO2.

Isn't this because the CO2 element of global warming is the one that we can affect?

[Hawkmumbler]

Sorry Sharky, but your wrong on this case. Dredging on the great barrier reef is not only illegal but heavily policed, a severe instance hasn't occured in a decade. Agricultural waste, chemical or sediment dropping, or overfishing or even oil would NOT cause corals to bleach. That only occures with increased alkaline purity on the water or exposure to bands of light emitted from the sun (or in artificial conditions not repliated in such a large scale) that would other wise have been filtered by the Ozone layer. The fact that in 20 years, over which CO2 emissions have increased, a drastic increase in coral fatalities has also occured only goes to prove that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a detremetal effect on the Ozone layer and is the cause of increased sea Ph.

[The Legendary Shark]

Just because we can affect it, that doesn't mean it's going to do anything. We'd be much better off cutting out the really toxic pollutants we spew out into the environment.

CO2 does not affect ozone. Ozone depletion is caused by chemicals such as chlorine and bromine. Also, NOx and HOx groups of chemicals, contained in jet exhausts, cause ozone depletion. In this case, CO2 is not the culprit. As for the rest, I'm content to take your word for it.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

And no, I don't understand it all - but then again, who does?

Oh right. Got it.

[Tiplodocus]

What was it again, that actually generated more co2 and methane emissions than all transport combined?

I just don't recall.

The World Health Organisation called it out as well.

Damn. What was it again?

[Jim_Campbell]

I would suggest you read this document, written by an actual science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, and then maybe we can debate its contents later.

Still peddling that document, eh, Shark?

You know what? No, I'm not going to read it, because it comes from the Global Warming Policy Foundation — an organisation dedicated to questioning the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change which refuses to disclose its funding but is co-founded by Lord (Nigel) Lawson, a man who takes a lot of money from the coal industry, an organisation whose 'Academic Committee' has no requirement for actual academic qualifications, relevant or otherwise.

Your willingness, as already noted, to embrace the opinions of vested big business interests sits oddly with your seeker-of-the-truth, sticking-it-to-the-man schtick and leads me back to my suspicion of a strong contrarian streak in your motives for posting here.

The problem here is that you can always find outliers on any scientific consensus. As proven this week, you can even find idiots who think the Earth is flat — we get to mock them because literally every available piece of evidence shows us that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and the argument is settled beyond any definition of reasonable doubt.

With the climate debate, the problem is that the only way it's proved beyond doubt is if we follow the pro-climate change argument or we don't. If we do, and the climate science is wrong, then all we've done is transition to a more sustainable, lower carbon economy which would be better able to survive the travails of a changing climate. If we don't, and the climate sceptics are wrong, then we render vast tracts of the planet uninhabitable to humans, still more unfarmable, and bring about the extinction of uncounted thousands of species of plants and animals when this outcome could have been mitigated, even if it couldn't be completely avoided.

There is plainly no point in discussing this further, because we're just going round the exact same houses as the last time.

Jim