Dear Gene‹It seems to me that you are rejecting the possibility of ever being convinced by what, in legal circles, might be called a circumstantial case. Because we cannot actually, for many reasons, do a lot of tests on the one Earth that we have, we have to come up with other approaches, and these include models, paleoclimatic analogs, fingerprints of the expected effects on the atmosphere (and more) of various forcings, and lots more. We basically try to consider all the suggested reasons that climate change could be occurring, and have ruled as very unlikely all but some arbitrary and speculative ideas for which there is virtually no evidence. Then following the tradition of Occam¹s Razor, we have chosen the most straightforward and quantitatively rigorous explanation as the one to consider primary until it can be replaced by another explanation that is more credible. Quite a number of such alternatives have been tested and found to be lacking in very important ways as the dominant influence, although some do play relatively minor roles. This does not mean that we fully understand everything about human-induced climate change, only that the human-induced effects being dominant is much, much better than any of the alternatives.
Fine to say it is not fully proven in the way that some simpler issues might be resolved, but the Earth system is both a physical system (in the widest sense of the meaning of physical) and so subject to fundamental conservation laws, etc., and it is very complex, so not subject to the type of full laboratory experiment that you might like. Thus, we are forced to approach things differently, namely, because the vitality of the Earth is so important to human well being, to identify the explanation that provides the best ability to explain what is happening and why in a really rigorous manner that has rule other explanations as beyond reasonable doubt, to use the legal phrase. Fine to keep suggesting challenges for the explanation, but to demand direct proof when all that will be possible is an overwhelming circumstantial case is choosing, it seems to many of us, to be inadequately giving credit to the reasoning power of the human mind and placing a very long odds bet in the face of a very serious challenge to the environment on which we all depend. Mike On 9/24/12 11:32 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron: > > > > In my humble opinion you got it wrong. I am the believer. I believe in the > scientific method. I have used it and continue to use a 500 year tradition > for how science must be practiced and I have been doing it continually for 55 > years since my postdoc days. I do not ever expect to see scientific proof that > global warming is caused mostly by the increased concentration of CO2 in the > atmosphere. I WILL BE LONG DEAD! It makes good sense that at least some of > it is caused by the CO2 increase; but it has not been demonstrated. Good > science does not always correlate with common sense. The scientific method is > a tough master. > > > > In contrast, you totally ignore the scientific method. You are a cynic along > with all the other CO2 advocates who incredibly vote on the validity of a > hypothesis and ignore the requirements of the scientific method. THAT AIN'T > THE WAY IT IS DONE! > > > > For the past 10,000 year record see: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm > <http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm> > > > > Milankovitch cycles do not apply to the entire earth simultaneously. In any > case although there is an amazing amount of understanding of the cycle it is > not thoroughly understood. > > > > Right now the ice data says we are in a high temperature portion and have been > for about 10,000 years. However Milankovitch has little to do with the > geological history of the Earth's climate as you may find in the Scotese > website above. If you study it you will find that motion of land masses > correlates with the gross temperature variations. > > > > Do you understand the term 'about'? > > > > Do you understand that a few warming and cooling cycles occur within almost > every 1000 year period as shown in the Vostok ice records, and that some > recent mini cycles correlate with sunspot variations (not a claim just an > observation). > > > > -gene > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected], "bhaskarmv 64" <[email protected]>, > "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:56:01 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. > > Drs. Gordon, Bhaskar and list: > > 1. This is first to follow up on Dr. Bhaskar's request to Dr. Gordon, > hoping that he will answer his yesterday-question below asking you to explain > the :"variety of possibilities to explain the warming ..." [I have > highlighted it and 3 others below] > I believe that you are on a list where any non-CO2 response will be quite > clinically rebutted. I urge you to check out those "possibilities" at > www.skepticalscience.com before giving them here. I hope you can then join > the "believer" (CO2-causation) group in as the only one that I find can't be > readily rebutted (as done at the several sites given below).. > > 2. But mostly I am asking a new question - to give a citation for your > earlier sentence below : > " The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the last 10,000 > years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 years > I follow a lot of denier literature and have never seen this one - > I doubt it can even be found at "skeptical science". Yes, one can find a > lower temperature roughly10,000 years ago and probably of even greater than 5 > degrees C. But at a slightly later time, it was higher than today and has > been mostly declining until the last century or so. The same decline (but > faster slope) is seen in all of the 100,000 year Milankovitcch cycles. To > take recent high temperatures and a lower value 10,000 years ago to find an > average positive slope is an approximation beyond mathematical credibility. > For my side of the story, I ask you to read: > > a. http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm > (has considerable data showing declining temperatures due to Milankovitch > cycles > > b. A figure at comment #217 will be recognized as the "Hockey stick" at > http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=258&&a=53 > All declining temperatures until recently - and these not as rapidly > declining as in ALL earlier cycles. > > c. Excellent set of response comments by Bill Ruddiman to his also > excellent original short "paper" at > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-earl > y-land-use/ > I saw only a few denier comments there. > > d. My Geoengineering (CDR; biochar) reason for being interested in this > topic is explicated by Erich Knight at comments #69, 90, 95 at > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-earl > y-land-use/comment-page-2/#comments > > Again, I ask for a citation for your view of this same time period. > > > 3. If you find you have erred on the above two points, I'd be interested in > knowing if you still stand by your two terms following the two repeated above: > "...it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. " and " CO2 freaks " > > > 4. I have also highlighted below a few of your Friday-remarks - and wonder if > you care to take any of those back as well? > > Ron > > > From: "M V Bhaskar" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "M V Bhaskar" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Ken Caldeira" > <[email protected]>, "Geoengineering" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:59:11 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. > > Gene > > You said " ... There are a variety of possibilities to explain the warming > ..." > What are they? > > The increase, over the past 200 years, in burning of fossil fuel, CO2 level of > atmosphere and oceans and rise in temperature are very well documented and the > correlation is very high. > > You seem to be arguing against yourself. > As per your own statement natural warming is only 0.0005 per year i.e., 0.05 > degrees over 100 years. > The actual increase in the past 100 years is about 0.8 degrees C, this is much > more than the 0.05 degrees you mentioned. > > regards > > Bhaskar > > On Saturday, 22 September 2012 19:59:57 UTC+5:30, Gene wrote: >> Bhaskar: >> >> >> >> You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, potential solutions >> depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the >> last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 >> years. [RWL: Emphasis added here and below.] That gradual rise is not the >> current or nearterm cause or issue. There are warming and cooling cycles, >> several per 1000 years and we may be in a warming cycle that accounts for the >> current warming. We are also in a Malenkovich cycle. There are a variety of >> possibilities to explain the warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. The >> point is that it is warming and the strategy for controlling the warming >> needs to be worked out and proven so it can be implemented as necessary. To >> conclude it is CO2 and ALL we need to do is reduce CO2 concentration is not >> warranted; it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. We need a thermostat that >> works and only geoengineering can provide that. I am appalled that the CO2 >> freaks have been able to block the emergence of a serious geoengineering >> effort. >> >> >> >> -gene >> >> >> >> From: "M V Bhaskar" <[email protected] <about:blank> > >> To: [email protected] <about:blank> >> Cc: [email protected] <about:blank> , [email protected] <about:blank> , "Ken >> Caldeira" <[email protected] <about:blank> >, "Geoengineering" >> <[email protected] <about:blank> > >> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. >> >> Eugene >> >> >> What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the problem? >> If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should find ways >> to solve or mitigate them. >> >> No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems. >> We are only trying to solve it. >> >> I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is, mainly or >> partly, due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity is adding fuel to the >> fire. :) >> >> regards >> >> Bhaskar >> >> On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote: >>> Eugene, >>> What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean acidification? >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>; Geoengineering >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. >>> >>> Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take >>> exception to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human >>> driven' cause ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven that >>> global warming is human driven and because it has been warming on average >>> for 10,000 years without enough humans or CO2 around to make a difference; >>> AND there are cycles of warming and cooling overlaying the general warming >>> trend. One can have an opinion, FINE, but opinion does not substitute for >>> proven science and the theory of CO2-driven global warming clearly remains >>> to be proven using the accepted scientific process. Science is not an >>> election and AGW remains to be proven. until it is proven it remains a not >>> so robust hypothesis. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it debatable? >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
