Climate Change

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Climate Change

Postby beowulf7 » 16 Aug 2019, 10:14

Actually, I agree with much of what you have said above. Faith in science means that you have to accept that science is not being corrupted by desired outcomes. This is where I question. In addition, you state above that there are models which have been accurate. Name them, please. I will start reading them.


Not sure I did actually - not in that post for sure... the point I made is that demanding "accurate models" is deflective. I don't need an "accurate model" for which day a burglar will beak into my house in order to buy a bolt and an alarm.

Cannot help feeling that there is a certain amount of willful blindness going on here. Akin to "People kill people - guns don't". These look positions that derive from a belief rather than derive from evidence

WHS - good post :)
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby schocker » 16 Aug 2019, 14:54

I think you have the "faith" about climate change or warming. From the past predictions, one can only assume that the science is not very accurate or quantitative. But, that could change of course and I eagerly await that.
Member of The Classicists
schocker
Premium Member
 
Posts: 532
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 19:05
Location: Texas
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1395
All-game rating: 1392
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 17 Aug 2019, 09:29

WHSeward wrote:
Strategus wrote:From my perspective, I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable. We are currently emerging from an ice age, and the planet has its own self regulatory system. We can't stop it. We didn't start it. It's gonna hapoen. So the plans should be to prepare for it. Trying to stop it is wasted effort. Saying we all do our bit will help is like saying, when faced with a tidal wave heading your way "if we all get a cup of water it will help".


@Strategus,

You don't explain what your perspective/belief is based on, but I assume it is from looking at the graph you posted in the OP. I imagine a thought process like this:
you see long blue lines around 22C;
you therefore assume that 22C is the planet's long-term trend line to which it must return;
you further conclude that any warming we observe is just that return to 22C.

There are a lot of problems with that simplistic level of "analysis", but I'll play along for a post or two and see if I can't urge you to think a little harder about the data we have and your perspective/beliefs.

Please, look at the X-axis on the chart again. It is measured in hundreds of millions of years; 100,000,000 years between dashes. It is absolutely correct that the world has spent a lot of time around 22C, but to move from 12C to 22C has taken on the order of multiple millions of years to occur.

What we are experiencing today is very different. We are on pace to move the earth's temperature 10C in just 600 years. That is more than 10,000X faster than the geological record suggests. So perhaps rather than being complacent and taking the perspective/believing something akin to "nothing to see here, the planet is just going back to its stable temperature" you might look a little harder and read a little more, and see if something else might explain the rapid change in temperature we are currently observing.

I did consider the timescale point. The data is not detailed enough in those time periods. The more recent data shows some rapid movement, if you look at other similar charts. There is a logarithmic one that shows more recent time in a wider x axis, which shows a lot more change over shorter periods.
IMG_0558.PNG
IMG_0558.PNG (298.24 KiB) Viewed 200 times


I don't really like seeing logarithmic axes, as they distort the picture. In the previous instances where temp has flipped, there is no short term data to show if it flipped in one go or flipped in repeated short bursts and fell back again like in this chart's latter period.

Where you say the temp will go up by 10 degrees in 600 years, the long term record seems to indicate that no matter what the crisis or trigger, it stops at 22. We don't know why this is, which is why we ignore it, I assume. Maybe natural losses into space.

But I come back to an earlier point. The trigger has happened or is happening, so are we better to prepare for the inevitable. I don't see the evidence that we can stop it. Maybe slow it down a bit. Fine, if you want to stop eating meat, hey ho. Go for it. In the mean time, Mankind needs to decide what it will do to cope with a warmer world. This is a survival issue, and half the planet is obsessed with zero emissions.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby WHSeward » 17 Aug 2019, 20:34

No, Strategus, I'm afraid you still don't have a handle on the scale. This is not about the squiggles at the end of that chart. Let's dig in a little more.

Now, first yes, more recent data does show more oscillations, but they are still of a totally different time scale than the global warming we are currently observing. FYI - that graph you posted isn't log scale, its just "convenience" scale, probably so the reader can see the different epochs: it is not precise at all.

In reality, the pleistocene epoch had on the order of 20 glacial cycles -- you know, the ice ages we are familiar with in pop culture from the movies of that name, and maybe from social studies and learning about the land bridge from Asia to Alaska. But galacial cycles operate on the order of +/-2C over the course of 10,000 years, with larger oscillations on a 100,000 year cycle. What we are talking about is a pace to put on 10C in 600 years. You can't appeal to geological time-scales to explain this very human time-scale development.

If the numbers aren't doing it for you, here is a link to a chart to give you a correct visual representation of the difference in scale. Please don't be put off that it is a comic - it's still correct and can help get you to the correct perspective on the available data.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1633)
All-game rating: (1647)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 17 Aug 2019, 20:47

WHSeward wrote:No, Strategus, I'm afraid you still don't have a handle on the scale. This is not about the squiggles at the end of that chart. Let's dig in a little more.

Now, first yes, more recent data does show more oscillations, but they are still of a totally different time scale than the global warming we are currently observing. FYI - that graph you posted isn't log scale, its just "convenience" scale, probably so the reader can see the different epochs: it is not precise at all.

In reality, the pleistocene epoch had on the order of 20 glacial cycles -- you know, the ice ages we are familiar with in pop culture from the movies of that name, and maybe from social studies and learning about the land bridge from Asia to Alaska. But galacial cycles operate on the order of +/-2C over the course of 10,000 years, with larger oscillations on a 100,000 year cycle. What we are talking about is a pace to put on 10C in 600 years. You can't appeal to geological time-scales to explain this very human time-scale development.

If the numbers aren't doing it for you, here is a link to a chart to give you a correct visual representation of the difference in scale. Please don't be put off that it is a comic - it's still correct and can help get you to the correct perspective on the available data.

So it's definitely too late. That optimistic line is still too little. Like I say, we need to prepare, not prevent.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby WHSeward » 18 Aug 2019, 01:49

Strategus wrote:So it's definitely too late. That optimistic line is still too little. Like I say, we need to prepare, not prevent.

Why do you say that? At the very least, why not do both? Why not also address the cause of this temperature excursion?

I think I know your answer; you posted it up thread:
Strategus wrote:1. I don't see conclusive evidence that climate change is solely down to co2 or solely down to humanity. The above chart seems to indicate there is no long term link between co2 and global average temp.
You don't want to "prevent" because you don't believe it has to do with humanity. It certainly is more convenient if we can continue to go about living our lives - burning fosil fuels, eating beef, clearing forests - as if none of this has any impact on the climate.

I don't know your background in statistics and modeling, but that chart in your OP is one big data and statistical fallacy designed to fool the unwary. You should not let it be too influential in your beliefs. Let me explain.

First the data. The chart in your OP does use C.R. Scotese (with an error; the temperature range should be from 10C to 25 or 30C rather than 12C to 22C on the chart, but that is really just a nit), however, it comes from a 1999 paper (online here), and it is one of his first attempts to chart paleoclimatology. The long flat lines along 30C aren't because the global temperature is that stable, but because the methods we use to estimate temperature that far back are very indirect and not particularly precise.

Nonetheless, in the 20 years since he published that data, more work has gone into the subject and this is what Scotese's latest estimate looks like:
Image
Those long flat lines have disappeared and a lot more detail has been filled in as he has added more data sources (primarily O18 data from Royer and Veizer & Prokoph whom he references on his chart.) So contrary to your claim
I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable.
there is in fact no long-term temperature at 22C, 30C, or any other stable temperature. Those long flat lines were just an artifact of a methodology. Think about it - he is ball-parking global temperatures indirectly using the fossil record. It's interesting, but not precise.

Then there is the statistical problem. I'll try to post about that if I have some more time later. Maybe tomorrow.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1633)
All-game rating: (1647)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 18 Aug 2019, 08:59

I just don't think the political systems around the planet will allow us to address it. As I said before, preserving resources is a good thing in any event.Destroying rainforests doesn't make sense, but there you go.

What do the red and blue lines represent? It is not clear?
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby DavidMaletsky » 19 Aug 2019, 06:17

I don’t track what’s been going on in this conversation.

Just in the last few months 95 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded north of the Arctic circle; Iceland has lost a glacier; salmon have died off in droves in the NW USA due to suffocation from water temperatures being too high; a swirling mass of plastic in the Pacific Ocean larger than Mexico was discovered; wildfires in Siberia; electrical storms in the Arctic; and not only are we ingesting microplastics, they have been discovered raining from the air.

There is not a lack of hard evidence of the detrimental impact humanity’s actions have had since the start of the Industrial Revolution. And any statistical analysis of geologic time, which observes events transpiring over millions of years, is strongly disanalogous/irrelevant to events transpiring over a sample size of 150 years.

Should also note that “scientists have let me down before so now I don’t listen to them” is a logical fallacy. It’s akin to saying “I used to think the sun rose every day, but then I had an eye injury and I didn’t see it rise for a few days, so now I am skeptical that the sun will rise”.
DavidMaletsky
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 19:05

Re: Climate Change

Postby DavidMaletsky » 19 Aug 2019, 06:36

One further addendum.

There is overwhelming correlative evidence between the advance of carbon emissions and the Industrial Revolution. As a consequence, the burden of proof to show causality falls on the opposing position, and not on the position where all the correlative evidence lies. cf. Ockham’s Razor
DavidMaletsky
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 19:05

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 19 Aug 2019, 09:25

DavidMaletsky wrote:One further addendum.

There is overwhelming correlative evidence between the advance of carbon emissions and the Industrial Revolution. As a consequence, the burden of proof to show causality falls on the opposing position, and not on the position where all the correlative evidence lies. cf. Ockham’s Razor

In your opinion
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest