There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when Dr. Roger Pielke mentioned a couple of weeks ago in a response to Real Climate that “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006”.
Today the University of Colorado updated their sea level graph after months of no updates. Note it says 2009_rel3 in lower left.
Source here. Here is the next oldest graph from UC that Pielke Sr. was looking at.
The newest one also looks “flat” to me since 2006, maybe even a slight downtrend since 2006. Let the wailing and gnashing begin anew.
Here is the text file of sea level data for anyone that wants to plot it themselves. In fact I did myself and my graph is below, with no smoothing or trend lines.
Here’s what UC says about the graph. They also provide an interactive wizard to look at specific areas.
Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. Concurrent tide gauge calibrations are used to estimate altimeter drift. Sea level measurements for specific locations can be obtained from our Interactive Wizard.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Smokey-
Not so, sad to say. It’s looking more and more like both the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum and the Permian/Triassic mass extinction were caused by runaway global warming leading to the release of a couple trillion tons of isotopically light methane from the methane hydrates. It’s looking in fact like the “clathrate gun” or “methane catastrophe” hypothesis is in fact the correct explanation for these extinction events, and possibly several mass extinction events.
The Permaian/Triassic mass extinction killed 95 percent of all species on earth, roughly.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Methane from hydrates is depleted in C13, relative to methane or CO2 not from hydrates. So, if a large amount of methane is released from these hydates, you would expect that there would be a sudden drop in the C12/C13 isotope ratios, in rocks laid down during these past extinction events.
Exactly that sort of signature is seen, for each of the extinction events mentioned above.
So, it looks like past runaway warming events, leading to mass extinctions, have indeed occurred.
We can hope that the triggering event for the Permian/Triassic extinction event was the Siberian Traps volcanism, which might have heated the deep ocean fast enough to trigger the catastrophe.
We can hope that outgassing from the Arctic tundra, as the frozen plant material in permafrost decays into methane will not trigger another methane catastrophe, and that the methane hydrates will stay stable.
We can hope that as tropical and boreal forests burn in huge firestorms, that this is insufficient CO2 forcing to trigger widespread dissociation of the methane hydrates.
We can hope that Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, who talked about “vicious cycle” feedbacks on Democracy Now! on February 26,2009, was wrong when he worried that melting of the permafrost, the ice/albedo feedback, tropical forests burning, boreal forests burning, outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as they warm, and so on, was wrong when he worried about these positive feedback processes leading to runaway global heating.
We can hope.
Whoops, I guess the above post should be addressed to Willis, not to Smokey.
Sorry about that.
By the way, my mood on the above post was not anger, nor was it any sort of tantrum.
I’m more depressed than angry or frustrated, dealing with the skeptics on this site.
The climate alarmists are right, even if they are wrong, because all we alarmists want is reasonable caution, and willingness to change when change appears to be necessary.
The climate skeptics are wrong, even if they are right, because we have all of our eggs in one basket that is looking increasingly fragile.
Risks are commonly assessed by multiplying the probability of an event by the consequences of an event.
The risks of runaway global heating are simply too great, and the consequences too immense, in my opinion, to be ignored.
“The risks of runaway global heating are simply too great, and the consequences too immense, in my opinion, to be ignored.”
The risks of runaway global heating are non-existent as the fossil record shows. Wiki is simply lying if it tries to ascribe those extinctions to CO2 warming while forgetting to mention flood basalts that would be destroying the atmosphere at the time.
The World is getting colder and government funded scientists are deliberately lying to hide it.
The idea that Man could tune the climate to order is actually extremely funny, apart from the number of people who believe it.
Leland, you are a classic case study in Cognitive Dissonance [CD] Keep an eye out for the flying saucers. And if they don’t arrive on schedule, it’s not because your beliefs are wrong. No. It’s because of something else; I know you’ll come up with an explanation.
As a confirmed true True Believer, you live your life according to the Precautionary Principle. No real scientist would say:
The only CD-enabling backup you have is your calthate
hypothesisconjecture picked from Wikipedia. And here we always thought the long-accepted, mainstream theory was a meteorite strike that smashed into the Earth 65 million years ago, killing off the dinosaurs and leaving a residue of iridium as its calling card.Meteors routinely strike the Earth, and we are overdue. But don’t worry about that, worry instead that an increase in a minor trace gas, from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand, will improbably cause the climate to hit a mysterious, fabricated “tipping point” and cause runaway global warming. Tell us, exactly where is that mythical tipping point? Or is it’s location a secret, known only to the Bovine Fecal Purveyance Specialists prognosticating about globaloney?
As I explained to you, there is no evidence — NONE — that a rise in CO2 has ever caused a rise in temperature, much less runaway global warming. [Keep in mind that pesky scientific word ‘evidence’].
Of course, the pro-globaloney Wikipedia, heavily censored by the agenda-driven propagandist William Connolley [who was so threatened by the “Gore Effect” page that he completely deleted the entire page], can not accept an extinction event that doesn’t blame CO2. So he waves through the calthate
hypothesisconjecture, and picks it as his scenario because it fingers CO2. Could this be any less scientific? No. Because it’s pure politics, not science. Big, big money is involved in the globaloney scam, my friend. You just seem a little naive about its corrupting effect.Your constant repitition of “we can hope…” indicates a non-rigorous intellect. I suspect that if Malthusian Luddites like you get in charge, we will be heading back to the days before Ignaz Semelweis.
The last Dark Ages occurred during a time of exceptional cold. It appears that with the current declining temperatures, we may be heading into a similar Dark Age scientifically. But hey, in a few more centuries there will be a new warm period, followed by a second Enlightenment.
In the mean time, you might as well go looking for some witches to burn. Don’t forget your torch and pitchfork.
Leland, thanks for your response.
I can find nothing in the geological history of the world where a slight rise in CO2 has caused any catastrophes. In fact, the CO2 level is currently at the low end of its historical range over geological time. See e.g.
Science 21 September 1990:
Vol. 249. no. 4975, pp. 1382 – 1386
DOI: 10.1126/science.249.4975.1382
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Over Phanerozoic Time
Robert A. Berner (requires subscription)
which shows that the CO2 levels in the last 500 million years have been 5-10 times what they are now for millions of years at a stretch.
The cause of the PETM warming some 55 million years BP is the subject of ongoing scientific debate and uncertainty. It is hypothesized that an unknown event caused a huge loss of methane from clathrates, poisoning the ocean and raising the temperature. There were mass extinctions in the ocean, but not on land, indicating an oceanic origin.
However, the high CO2 levels (up to 10x the present) in the last half-billion years have not caused any other such event, despite the presence of clathrates … which makes it unlikely that CO2 caused the PETM warming.
So do I think a doubling or even a tripling of CO2 will cause thermal runaway? Absolutely not, we’ve seen much, much more than that in the last hundred million years or so without thermal meltdown.
Now, if you want to worry about that, it’s up to you. But there is no scientific case to be made that the projected worst case CO2 rise will cause thermal runaway.
Next, you say:
Well, you know … I actually knew that. And discussed it above. And recommended that you read Crichton’s speech on that very subject before you made yourself look more uninformed than I suspect you actually are.
However, you’ve obviously not done so … so let me recommend it again.
Next, quoting Wikipedia on a scientific site such as WUWT will not gain you any traction at all, it simply calls your credibility into question. Some things Wikipedia is good for, but climate science is not one of them. See this article for a good explanation of why it absolutely cannot be trusted in re climate.
Next, enough with the accusations of bad faith, please. Speculations on people’s motives and the like go nowhere. I’ll assume that you are trying to learn more about the relatively new science of the climate, which we’ve only been really seriously and intensively studying for about a quarter century or so. As such, there are many more questions than answers. Most of us are trying to discuss and find answers here on this site, not looking to get into food fights or pretend that we understand why others believe what they believe. Please do us the courtesy of assuming that we, like you, are looking to gain further scientific understanding of the climate.
And finally, citations are your friend. If you want to make a claim, back it up with some science or at least a citation to further support for your ideas.
My best to you,
w.
So, the general consensus among the people that post on this site appears to be that the chances of runaway global warming are zero.
This would mean that the majority of climate scientists are wrong.
The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.
And some of the people that post on this site are so sure that they are right, that they are willing to bet the entire biosphere on it.
This does not seem to be reasonable, to me.
Some of you are so sure that you’re right, and thousands of climate scientists are wrong, that you’re willing to bet the entire future of the human race on it? Even if you were right (and you’re not) how could you be that sure?
Let’s try again:
The dinosaur killer extinction 65 million years ago is generally acknowledged to have been due to a large meteor or asteroid striking the earth. The methane catastrophe hypothesis has no argument with that. That was the
What the methane catastrophe hypothesis tries to explain are the other significant mass extinctions, including the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum, and the Permian/Triassic mass extinction, and a couple more including a really huge event back in the Precambrian, which apparently changed a completely glaciated earth into a tropical one.
By the way, notice the “/” in the above names. That “/” represents the end of one geological era, and the beginning of another. Not only are there apparent methane catastrophes in the fossil record, they are apparently big enough to kill enough species so that paleontologists have been noticing these huge changes in the fossil record for hundreds of years, and in fact have based their classification system on them.
The literature is full of scientific papers on the methane catastrophe or clathrate gun hypothesis, and on the scientific evidence for that hypothesis.
Here’s one, about the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/TZBTB_02.pdf
Warming the fuel for the fire: Evidence for the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.
Deborah J. Thomas Department of Geological Sciences, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3315, USA
James C. Zachos Earth Sciences Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
Timothy J. Bralower Department of Geological Sciences, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3315, USA
Ellen Thomas Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06549-0139,
USA and Center for the Study of Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA
Steven Bohaty Earth Sciences Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
Oh, on edit –
The dinosaur killer extinction was the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event, and that extinction is indeed generally thought to be caused by an asteroid hitting the earth.
Another reference for the methane catastrophe hypothesis, this one for the Permian/Triassic mass extinction:
Oh, on edit-
When I copied the above abstract, from here:
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2003TREEPTr.pdf ,
the “6 (degrees) C” in the original paper copied itself as “68C” for some unknown reason. That’s just the way it copied, sorry, the “degree” symbol transposed itself into an “8”
I never meant to suggest that the global warming in the Permian/Triassic mass extinction was 68 degrees!
Although, for us, we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than natural processes, and may soon ignite the mother of all methane catastropes, sufficient, perhaps, to totally destabilize the climate system. If we totally destabilize the climate system, we could indeed see these sorts of temperature increases, in my opinion.
Leland, you continue to throw out wild ‘n’ crazy statements like…
…without any citation or reference. Maybe because that statement is totally wrong, eh? If not, name those scientists in the ‘majority.’
In fact, over 31,000 scientists [all in the hard sciences; no English Lit or Sociology majors allowed, and all are from the U.S.] have signed the following statement:
That signed statement completely contradicts your beliefs. Compare those 31,000 scientists with the fewer than 100 UN scientists from around the world who issued the widely discredited UN/IPCC assessment reports. And keep in mind that those UN/IPCC folks are political appointees; they have their marching orders. Even so, a significant number have refused to go along with the “consensus,” and have resigned in protest or submitted papers contradicting the UN/IPCC’s conclusions.
You claim that “…we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than natural processes, and may soon ignite the mother of all methane catastropes…”
Do you just invent these figures, and hope no one will notice? Even the UN admits that human CO2 emissions are a very tiny fraction of the total: click.
In fact, the annual fluctuation of natural CO2 emissions from year to year is greater than the annual total emitted by human activity. Yet you appear to be terrified that CO2 is gonna getcha.
The elephant in the room is this: as beneficial CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature continues to fall — proving that CO2 has little if any effect on temperature. That fact also debunks the CO2=AGW conjecture. So it’s back to the drawing board, because the AGW conjecture is DOA.
This is fun, Leland. Keep ’em coming.
Hi Smokey-
That 31,000 scientist list was the result of a kind of scam or myth.
Watch the video:
It’s also a very old list. Major events, such as accelerated melting of the Arctic icecap, have occurred since then.
It also appears that anyone can sign this list, and claim to be a scientist, because no effort was made to check the list for accuracy.
This scientific paper is not a scam. It might be wrong, but it was an honest paper, and like most scientific papers, is an honest attempt to understand what actually happened, IMO:
With regard to the statement that most climate scientists admit at least the possibility of runaway global heating, I stand by that statement.
From Wikipedia: Scientific opinon on climate change
With regard to your link, that shows human sources to be a small fraction of the total, this is true but taken out of context.
Yes, of course, human caused carbon entering the atmosphere is a small fraction of that contained in the oceans and other carbon reservoirs.
What that link does not tell you is that natural carbon fluxes are in balance, while human caused sources are almost entirely one way, taking carbon from the ground in the form of fossil fuels, and putting it in the air as CO2 from combustion of those fossil fuels.
This is in fact one of the scary things about runaway global warming. Once initiated, it appears to have the ability to “become self-sustaining”, in the words of Stephen Hawking. And the quantities of carbon are so huge that we might not be able to do anything about it, once the process starts running away.
Regarding humans adding carbon to the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural process, that is simply factually true. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing at about one percent per year, which is a huge, unprecedented rate of change, much higher than the very slow rates of change that have occurred in the geological record.
Increases of 100 ppm of CO2 in the fossil record would generally take tens of millions of years, not two centuries. The only comparable rates of change of CO2 concentration we know of were during the extinction events that are referred to above, and generally, the rates of change during those extinction events appear to be slower than our current huge rate of one percent per year.
It’s all very sad, and I mean that sincerely, not angrily. You appear to have internalized a lot of climate skeptic talking points, and will simply not change your predetermined conclusion, ever, no matter what the evidence.
Leland, you seem kind of confused about how this “science” thing works.
You said, without any citation of any kind:
When you were questioned about this, the scientific response would have been to provide a citation for your claim. You made the claim, it is your obligation to back it up.
Instead, you’ve gone on the attack. This is not science. If you want us to believe your claim, provide a citation for your claim.
It’s not that difficult. You’ve made a strong claim, that the “majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.” I have seen very few climate scientists making that claim. Many claim that the warming in the next century will be 2°C. Fewer claim that it will be 4°C. Some say there is a slight chance of an 8°C warming.
But I’ve never seen a claim like yours. It’s an unbelievable claim, that the majority of climate scientists say that there is a significant chance of runaway warming. Note that runaway warming did not happen even during the PETM. There was a spike, but it was not notable for how high it got. It was notable for how fast it went up and then back down, but it was no warmer than it was for millions of years during the “Eocene Optimum”.
Now if you want to retain your credibility you have two choices. Either retract your claim, or provide a citation for your claim.
Don’t bother with attacking me or anyone else. Don’t bother telling us how sad you are, we don’t care about your emotional state, this is science. Either admit that you were wrong, or provide a citation for your claim.
Is there an echo in here?
w.
Leland, you should read the links people have provided. Ill formed arguments do nobody any good.
It is clear that you misunderstand many very basic things. For example, there was a link that compared anthropogenic and natural sources of CO2. In your reponse “Yes, of course, human caused carbon entering the atmosphere is a small fraction of that contained in the oceans and other carbon reservoirs.” you seem to confuse natural sources and total CO2. Quite different.
Another simple example of how far out of touch you are. You state above “Increases of 100 ppm of CO2 in the fossil record would generally take tens of millions of years, not two centuries.”
Please look at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php . This chart from NASA shows atmospheric CO2 rising more than 100ppm in about 15,000 years. (Please note, 15,000 years is much shorter than tens of millions of years).
Why are you so worried about potential runaway heating, but seem unperturbed by the very real, although small, risk of an asteroid hitting the earth?
Hi Willis-
Nothing easier, I have already provided one. Here’s a summary of several:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changed
Hi Charlie-
OK, ya got me, I didn’t know this. I thought that CO2 variations were slower. The last 20,000 years is an atypical period, though, as we were coming out of an ice age, and so according to the text underneath the graph:
Even on the graph from NASA, though, which shows an atypical period with multiple ice ages during the past 160,000 years, the last 200 years would show up as a vertical spike, extending approximately 2/3 the height of the graph, on the right hand side of the graph. This spike would be almost totally vertical, “geologically instantaneous” in the words of some of the scientific papers I quoted, similar to spikes seen during mass extinction events.
If we go up to 450 ppm CO2, that would be an almost vertical line on the right hand side of the of the graph, extending past the top of the graph, extending an additional 150 ppm (the height of the graph) above the top of the graph.
If we go to 1000 ppm, which is looking pretty likely by the end of the century, that would be an almost totally vertical line on the right hand side of the graph extending about 5 times the height of the graph.
Suppose we were to plot total greenhouse gas equivalents, and include methane in the graph. If we see a methane catastrophe, that would equal an almost totally vertical line of the right side of the graph that is perhaps 10 to 50 times taller than the graph, or even more.
So, perhaps you see my point about rates of change.
The huge rate of change of our current CO2 increase appears to be totally unsustainable and could trigger a methane catastrophe – which would be much, much worse that a simple CO2 increase.
Leland me boy, keep settin’ ’em up, and I’ll keep knockin’ ’em down. But first, may I point out that you come across as a badly frightened child who is worrying about the monster under his bed? As you’ve said repeatedly, you’re scared. Fear is a good thing… when there is a rational basis for it. But since there is no evidence for runaway AGW outside of always-inaccurate computer models, and since the planet itself is contradicting AGW [CO2 is rising, as the planet’s temperature steadily declines], you need to get a grip. Now, on to deconstructing your latest fantastic claims:
You state that since the OISM petition was started: “Major events, such as accelerated melting of the Arctic icecap, have occurred…”.
First off, that’s not a “major event,” Leland. Your reading comprehension appears selective, since I’ve already explained to you, with several links like this, that global ice is substantially increasing. But you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that fact. Your Cognitive Dissonance prevents you from understanding anything except that which confirms your belief system — which is that the Arctic is all that matters. We must never mention the Antarctic, or global ice cover. The Arctic confirms your beliefs, so you only mention the Arctic. For someone afflicted with severe CD, the Antarctic doesn’t even exist.
Next, you say: “It also appears that anyone can sign this [OISM petition] list, and claim to be a scientist, because no effort was made to check the list for accuracy.” Did you simply fabricate that? If so, this link will correct your false claim that “no effort was made to check the list for accuracy”: click
Your assertions here are even more ridiculous:
“Regarding humans adding carbon to the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural process, that is simply factually true…. we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than natural processes, and may soon ignite the mother of all methane catastropes, sufficient, perhaps, to totally destabilize the climate system.”
Your CD affliction prevents you from accepting the established fact that for every one molecule of beneficial CO2 emitted by human activity, the Earth emits 34 molecules of CO2 naturally. [Note that one thirty-fourth is not the same as saying humans are “adding carbon to the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural process,” as you incorrectly stated without any citation. And based on the very tiny amount of human produced CO2 [which is smaller than the annual natural variability of the planet’s year to year CO2 output], you believe that ‘climate catastrophe’ will result. [Leland! Don’t look under the bed!! There might be a carbon dioxide monster down there!]
Finally, a word about Cognitive Dissonance, a mental disorder recognized throughout the psychological community:
Everyone suffers from CD on occasion in various minor ways, such as a cigarette smoker rationalizing his habit even though he knows it’s not good for him. But in some extreme cases CD gets so completely out of control that it borders on psychosis.
The famous social psychologist Dr. Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of Cognitive Dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon. The psychological model is that their belief system becomes part of their identity, their self, and therefore information that is at odds with their belief system becomes an attack on the self. This helps to explain why such people can be extremely resistant to unbiased information that would be judged positive on a rational basis.
Dr. Festinger’s book, When Prophecy Fails, tells of a group of doomsday believers led by a Mrs. Keech, who predicted the imminent arrival of space aliens who would save only her and her group of believers from the planet’s destruction.
When the flying saucers didn’t arrive as predicted, rather than admit they were wrong, Mrs. Keech’s group of true believers became even more determined that they were right. They became even louder, and proselytized even more aggressively following the disconfirmation of their beliefs. The following is an account of that:
AGW catastrophe believers follow exactly the same psychological script. As contrary evidence to their belief continues to pile up, proponents of AGW catastrophe have begun to display clear signs of Cognitive Dissonance. So we can expect ever more extreme, opaque, and strange defenses from AGW proponents, as more and more evidence against their belief system accumulates. For example, we are now told, in all seriousness, that global warming causes global cooling.
Don’t look under the bed, Leland. Look in the mirror.
Leland, to review the bidding, you had said
I asked for a cite. You replied:
Either my writing skill are slipping, or you’ve forgotten what you said. They were good cites, and I learned inter alia that of the 36 state meteorologists who answered one poll, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made … which hardly supports the idea that GW is A, much less running away … and a host of other interesting things
But not one of your cites mentions a single word about runaway global warming.
You do understand that a citation to support a claim that “The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming” should have the word “runaway” in it somewhere, don’t you?
w.
I don’t think that any poll that is taken with people who are currently employed has much validity. When the AGW establishment agrees through its deafening silence with James Hansen, that those who disagree with AGW should be treated as criminals, then it’s wise to keep quiet rather than risking one’s carreer.
OTOH, I would accept the results of a poll taken of retired meteorologists and climatologists, who can answer questions freely without a threat to their employment.
Even so, as Willis points out, the poll results claimed by Leland don’t say what he believes they say. When 61% of respondents said that historical data do not indicate “that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels,” that puts AGW believers in a distinct minority.
But of course, that is a poll — and polls are frequently used for propaganda by both sides of the debate. The real elephant in the room is the fact that even as Earth’s temperature continues to decline, CO2 levels continue to rise. That simple fact drives a stake through the heart of the repeatedly falsified CO2=AGW conjecture.
Leland, here’s something else for you to worry about. The very high energy particle accelerator at CERN might make a black hole that would grow, and grow, and grow until it devours the earth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html
Of course, a more rational person would realize that the experiment that CERN is doing has been going on in nature for millions of years and the resultant black holes, if any, have not gone on to devour the earth. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/science/21cernw.html?_r=1
A similar argument in regards to CO2 and runaway temperature rise makes such a runaway rise extremely, extremely unlikely category by using the same sort of logic.
Are you also afraid of a mini black hole consuming the earth? If not, why not? Do you understand the logic of those that say nature has already run the experiment billions of times?
Leland, you’re consensus post is meaningless without mention of Peiser’s analysis of Oreskes
Hi Smokey-
It’s a very strange value system displayed on this site, I think.
Normal caution with the fate of the planet and the welfare of present and future generations becomes craven, irrational fear, for example.
I’m sure that future generations will congratulate some of you on your courage.
Which is no doubt why we have an almost vertical spike in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when these increases are plotted on a geological timescale.
Something is happening to very, very rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere, in the biomass, and in the oceans.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for you, Smokey, to tell us what that is.
Cognitive Dissonance in fact seems to be part of your problem. Try, for example, to reconcile your statement about the earth emitting 34 times as much CO2 as humans do, with the almost vertical spike in CO2 concentrations we have been seeing.
Regarding modeling, normal scientific caution has in fact made them too conservative, as climate scientists like Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, admitted on Democracy Now on February 26, 2009. Uniformly, as the Arctic continues to melt at a pace far faster than predicted, and wildfires around the world increase to unprecedented levels, the warming is happening far faster than the models predicted.
Regarding the Antarctic, it appears that the whole glacier creation and destruction process has sped up down there. I’ll find out more about this, and report back.
Like I said, though, it’s a strange value system displayed on this site.
In a way, it appears to be a class issue. People on this site have internalized and now advocate positions that are very important to the hugely rich coal power plant owners and super rich families that control major oil companies, but which are not in their own self interest. Really, there is no class issue that is more fundamental than threatening the stability of the earth’s climate system itself.
There’s a very interesting science fiction story called The Marching Morons, by C. M. Kornbluth, I think. In that story, a conman from the past helps future genius level people con the general population into cooperating with their own destruction.
More and more, the behavior of people on this site is reminding me of the behavior of the victims in that story. People in this site have swallowed commercially motivated propaganda, and internalized it, so much so that they are advocating policies that are not in their own self-interest, I think.
Leland, while your musings on our value system and cognitive dissonance and class warfare would likely have value on some site where people care about such things, this is a science site. Here, we don’t give a shit about your deep philosophy. Please take it somewhere else, it is not welcome here.
If you wish to discuss science, we’re happy to do so. For example, I’m still waiting for a single citation to your ridiculous claim that the majority of climate scientists think there is a “significant chance of runaway global warming”.
On the other hand, if you want to continue your inane drivel about “commercially motivated propaganda” and the like, I would ask everyone to simply reply:
“That’s OK, dear, after you provide your citations you can play with the other kids”.
Because you see, we don’t give a rat’s ass about your ideas about class warfare and commercially motivated propaganda. Those musings have no place on a scientific website. We care if you have valid scientific contributions to make to the discussion.
There are plenty of sites out there where people do care about such things, and would be glad to discuss them with you.
This is not one of those sites. Here, we discuss science and scientific ideas, not Marxism and people’s behavior.
I’m not saying that discussing science fiction and class warfare is a bad thing. It is not. And your ideas on the subject may be true and insightful and valuable.
I’m just saying, please do it somewhere else. Here, pushing those ideas just makes you look like a clueless college freshman who has wandered into the wrong classroom, and insists on taking up valuable class time trying to argue art history with the mathematics professor. Doing that does not make you look wise or thoughtful, it does not contribute to the discussion.
It just makes you look like you don’t care that you are in the wrong classroom.
As I said, if you want to discuss science, fine … but put up or shut up.
Hi Willis-
Oh, do you set the rules by which people are allowed to post on this site?
Leland Palmer (12:29:42), you ask:
Heck, no. No rules, just commonsense suggestions. If you want to look like a petulant child in a room full of adults, you are free to ignore them.
w.
Leland said:
Leland, I can make a graph of any x,y function go straight up. All the way to the moon, if you like.
Since you’re an Al Gore true believer, look at Al’s graph: click. Gore is amazing, isn’t he? His graph can only work if he can make time go backwards. Believe his swill if you like.
Now let’s look at an honest graph of atmospheric CO2: click [look close, or you’ll miss it].
You claim that: “Something is happening to very, very rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere, in the biomass, and in the oceans. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you, Smokey, to tell us what that is.”
Well, Leland, CO2 is not increasing in the biomass, as you incorrectly assert. Carbon is increasing in the biomass, as the O2 is stripped from the CO2 and emitted for us to breathe. And even if we doubled beneficial atmospheric carbon dioxide, there would be no ill effects because of the log response. The only downside to doubling CO2 would be that you’d be even more frightened.
You also claim that “as the Arctic continues to melt at a pace far faster than predicted, and wildfires around the world increase to unprecedented levels, the warming is happening far faster than the models predicted.” Wrong on all counts.
You don’t listen, do you, Leland? Every statement you’ve made has been thoroughly debunked. Every single one [and if you want the links, just ask; I’ve already given you the link – twice – showing you that global ice cover is increasing]. But of course, your belief is all that matters to you. Black is white, down is up, war is peace, evil is good… and CO2 is gonna getcha!
Keep posting, Leland. This is fun, and you are a really great example of runaway Cognitive Dissonance in action.