Folks, There are many web sites and blogs where people argue about the reality of human-induced global warming.
We do not need to turn this discussion group into another forum to argue with people who do not draw the conclusions that most people draw when faced with overwhelming evidence of human impact on the climate system. My suggestion is two-fold: 1. Because we do not want to be seen as silencing outliers, people who reject what most people consider established science should be allowed to post; however, 2. People should exercise self-restraint, so if you want to argue with the outlier about the reality of human-induced climate change, please take the discussion offline and respond to the outlier offline. Let's avoid turning this discussion group into a group that argues about the reality of human-induced climate change. Best, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Our YouTube videos* The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI> Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk> More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike: > > > > I am not rejecting anything. I include in my list of possibilities the > idea that most of the current warming is caused by CO2 increase. However, I > reject the idea that the case is sufficiently convincing to act on it. > Moreover, some competent scientists, who know far far more than I do about > the current status, reject the idea. Countries like Canada, for example, > reject it. Are they motivated by the benefits of warming? Perhaps. But who > is to say you are not motivated by the benefits of acting to reduce CO2 > emission or concentration? Humans being what they are, *and we know what > they are*, cannot be completely trusted. That is why we rely on the > scientific method. Too bad it is inconvenient or not sufficiently timely > for this case! > > > > Moreover, some countries are not unhappy about the warming so there will > never be a consensus for acting on it by means of reducing CO2 > concentration. That is why I am such a strong believer in geoengineering > that has relatively local or short term applicability. Among this group > there are experts. I am certainly not an expert and indeed far from it nor > do I want to be. My technical interest is in infection control. The study > of geoengineering should receive far more support; possibly receiving funds > currently going to climate scientists who by your own words do not have > firm control of the science after many many years of study. > > > > I point out again as I have many times in the past that for the last 50 > years the study of cancer received over $400 billion dollars in the US and > is currently receiving $20 billion annually and still there is no > understanding of what causes cancer. On the other hand there are some > fixes. Fortunately the death rate is not increasing because there are > cures, not well understood or scientific, but they do work sometimes. > Geoengineering is a similar cure. It does not end the problem. It should > get a big portion of the money presently going to climate science, which > you admit is not providing the necessary understanding or confirmation and > won't for the foreseeable future. The funding should be used instead for > defining, inventing, and testing geoengineering solutions. > > > > -gene > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]> > *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"Geoengineering" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Monday, September 24, 2012 12:07:35 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. > > 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 Occam’s 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-early-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-early-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. > -- 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.
