The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness

Post by **clv101** » 21 Mar 2012, 10:18

Urm, a runaway greenhouse effect is shocking, if you were shocked by it then the name did the job.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Mar 2012, 12:10

I've just re-read Chapter 10 "The Venus Syndrome" of James Hansen's 'Storms of my Grandchildren'.

clv101 is quite right in that the emphasis is on the process of runaway greenhouse effect rather than the end state. Hansen repeats that IF we burn the fossil fuel the only doubt about the Venus Syndrome, in this sense, are about when not if it happens. Such runaway greenhouse process leads to an uninhabitable planet, so Ludwig's first inclination to shock was the appropriate response.

Hansen starts the chapter by pointing out that Venus and Earth started off with similar chemical make-ups. Of course the 97% dense CO2 atmosphere did not get its carbon from fossil coal and oil etc but from the degassing of rock. On Earth there are orders of magnitude more carbon available than just in the fossils and these sources could be unleashed as a result of our burning all the fossil fuels.

Thus Hansen concludes that if we burn all the coal, oil shales and tar sands, the Venus Syndrome is a dead certainty.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 21 Mar 2012, 14:30

Wow.

Well Biff is certainly clinging to his beliefs. I suggest for the rest however that you look up "argument from higher authority fallacy" before swallowing his pitch.

Personally speaking I'm shaking my head at this point.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Mar 2012, 14:42

"argument from higher authority fallacy"

it states that, "if somebody knows what they're talking about, we shouldn't believe them."

Fair enough.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 21 Mar 2012, 15:06

RenewableCandy wrote:
"argument from higher authority fallacy"
it states that, "if somebody knows what they're talking about, we shouldn't believe them."

Fair enough.

No it says more along the lines of stupid people believe it's true because "the police chief" or "priest" or "politician" or some other "higher authority" said so.

EDIT: Anyway, let's stop this nonsense right now.

During the Carboniferous it was 8C warmer than today and there was 1500 ppm in the air at the time. Hint: The Carboniferous is the time period where the carbon in the air was laid down as coal. i.e. it was already IN the air and DIDNT make the Earth into Venus.

During the Eocene period it was 12C warmer than today and there was 4000 ppm in the air at the time. Again the Earth did NOT turn into Venus and it was most likely that the "unstoppable/runaway" warming took place due to tipping points being reached e.g. methan clathrates melting etc.

At the end of the Quaternary period an area the size of Siberia erupted volcanically and continue erupting for more than a million years. During this time massive coal seams were burned up by the lava flows AND the methan clathrates ended up in the atmosphere too. During this period (the K-T extinction) 90% of the Earth's species went extinct. But methinks having an area the size of Siberia erupting volcanically was a teeny bit worse than burning some fossil fuels.

In the end it can quite REASONABLY be expected that if we burn every last drop of oil, gas and coal (which we likely won't) AND the methane clathrates end up in the atmosphere THEN we might end up with something like the Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Now some of you might say that means we're doomed because of the crap being posted about non inhabitable regions, but in fact the Eocene was one of the most biologically diverse geological epochs ever.

In any case to get "degassing of rock" you need temperatures in the hundreds of degrees not 12C warmer i.e. we will NOT end up with Venus.

Not happening.

But my words won't shut biff up because he's a believer.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Mar 2012, 16:02

fifthcolumn wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
"argument from higher authority fallacy"
it states that, "if somebody knows what they're talking about, we shouldn't believe them."

Fair enough.
No it says more along the lines of stupid people believe it's true because "the police chief" or "priest" or "politician" or some other "higher authority" said so.

But it's not a Polis or a priest or a politician izzit? It's the chap who's actually crunched the numbers. And he's not really in a position of "authority", in the social or political sense of the word, in that he's not in a position to make us do stuff.

He might be wrong, he might be right. Saying he definitely isn't right, when you haven't got the expertise yourself, is, erm, desperate. This isn't Physics: it's Psychology.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 21 Mar 2012, 16:05

RenewableCandy wrote: He might be wrong, he might be right. Saying he definitely isn't right, when you haven't got the expertise yourself, is, erm, desperate. This isn't Physics: it's Psychology.

He HASN'T crunched the feckin numbers. He's made a model that is WRONG with feedback effects that DON'T EXIST.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Mar 2012, 18:44

fifthcolumn wrote:Wow.

Well Biff is certainly clinging to his beliefs. I suggest for the rest however that you look up "argument from higher authority fallacy" before swallowing his pitch.

It's not about my 'beliefs'. That's not relevant in science. Hansen is generally acknowledged to know more about climate science of both Venus and Earth than you or I. His work in this area is generally accepted within the community of climate scientists. I have enough knowledge of science (my degree is geology) to be able to understand much of what Hansen writes and to make a judgement as to whether his arguments stack up. It is my judgement that they do.

I gather, 5th, that your salary depends on the continued exploitation of fossil carbon? You know what they say...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Mar 2012, 18:54

fifthcolumn wrote:I suggest for the rest however that you look up "argument from higher authority fallacy" before swallowing his pitch.

I did. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html

Your case rest on your argument that Person A, in this case Hansen, is not an authority on the matter. When it come to the Venus Syndrome there is no greater authority.

QED

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 21 Mar 2012, 21:09

biffvernon wrote:I did. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html

Your case rest on your argument that Person A, in this case Hansen, is not an authority on the matter. When it come to the Venus Syndrome there is no greater authority.

QED

Nope. You conveniently cherry picked.

That Hansen states true facts in some areas is used as an indication to assert that everything he says is true.

Also you stating that you have a geology degree in no way makes you better prepared than me who has a physics degree, quite the contrary.

Therefore I refute your false assertion once more and restate my position:
Hansen is wrong about the Earth turning into Venus and you haven't done your research and merely relied on his opinion.

And this time it's over.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Mar 2012, 21:47

fifthcolumn wrote: Therefore I refute your false assertion once more and restate my position:
Hansen is wrong about the Earth turning into Venus and you haven't done your research and merely relied on his opinion.

Eh? Which of my assertions is false and why so? I've never claimed to have done any climate science research but I fancy I'm a pretty good judge of those who have. My judgement leads me to rely on Hansen's opinions. For those of us who will not live several centuries, we will not know whether Hansen is right. It comes down to whether we value his opinions highly enough to make it worthwhile altering our behaviour. It also depends on whether you value your grandchildren.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Mar 2012, 23:14

Whether or not Hansen is eventually vindicated, 5th is a living embodiment of that saying by Upton Sinclair.

Post by **clv101** » 22 Mar 2012, 10:32

fifthcolumn wrote: i.e. we will NOT end up with Venus.

Didn't we already cover this - no one is saying the Earth will become Venus, you're fighting a straw man.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Mar 2012, 10:53

To be honest I think I was interpreting Hansen as saying that we could. There's a bit of a string of ifs though. We need to burn all the fossil carbon (that's not going to happen in all probability), that will have to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect (which Hansen says is a dead certainty) by warming the oceans sufficiently to release all the methane hydrates and then (a big IF) the runaway is so great that the normal carbon cycle through rocks is stopped - no more creatures making limestone but continued tectonic processes outgassing the rocks till a several million years on...dah-dah...Venus.

But what we actually have to worry about is Hansen's warning that unless we get the atmosphere back to 350 pdq ocean acidification is going to scupper the whole monkey to human evolution project. And it's not just those of us who eat shellfish.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 22 Mar 2012, 18:27

clv101 wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote: i.e. we will NOT end up with Venus.
Didn't we already cover this - no one is saying the Earth will become Venus, you're fighting a straw man.

Uh. This:

biffvernon wrote: To be honest I think I was interpreting Hansen as saying that we could.

Doh. Do you want to backpedal now Chris?