Global warming isn't anything to worry about

[RiseAgainst]

I've heard a lot of scientists talk about it like it is a fact. They say that it is unnatural and caused by humans. The Earth goes through times where the temperature is very low (the ice age), and times when it is higher. One of those times is right now, I can't understand why so many people believe a hypocrite like Al Gore and blindly follow his every word.

 

[Proton Soup]

I can't understand why so many people believe a hypocrite like Al Gore and blindly follow his every word.

maybe it's his big mansion. or his mortgage-sized power bill.

 

[RiseAgainst]

He wastes so much money and people are willing to over look that for some reason.

 

[Andre]

Perhaps that the sociologists and psychologists can explain it all eventually.

 

[rasmhop]

I've heard a lot of scientists talk about it like it is a fact. They say that it is unnatural and caused by humans. The Earth goes through times where the temperature is very low (the ice age), and times when it is higher.

Sure the temperature on the Earth varies naturally, but we have substantial evidence that suggests that the current increase in temperature is caused mainly by humans. Just because the temperature can change naturally doesn't mean that every change is natural.

In my opinion it doesn't really matter whether it's caused by us or not, what matters is that it's likely to lead to negative consequences and that we have the means to mitigate these effects. Even if global warming was natural we should try to prevent it if we could.

He wastes so much money and people are willing to over look that for some reason.

Whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not doesn't really matter when it comes to what we should do about global warming. No intelligent person would blindly follow Al Gore, but instead research the issue and draw a conclusion themselves about the truth of his message. People shouldn't ignore global warming just because a person they don't like advocates doing something about it.

 

[Andre]

Sure the temperature on the Earth varies naturally, but we have substantial evidence that suggests that the current increase in temperature is caused mainly by humans.

Please do give a link to that evidence.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not doesn't really matter when it comes to what we should do about global warming. No intelligent person would blindly follow Al Gore, but instead research the issue and draw a conclusion themselves about the truth of his message. People shouldn't ignore global warming just because a person they don't like advocates doing something about it.

I know that it doesn't matter when it comes to what action we should take, but when the leader of a movement is a lies and is hypocritical how can you trust that the entire movement has been for the best. Global warming is the main way that he makes money, he isn't doing what is best for the world, he is doing what is best for his bank account.

 

[AntiStrange]

I know that it doesn't matter when it comes to what action we should take, but when the leader of a movement is a lies and is hypocritical how can you trust that the entire movement has been for the best. Global warming is the main way that he makes money, he isn't doing what is best for the world, he is doing what is best for his bank account.

The answer to your question is simple.
It's not about trust!
and NO ONE is "blindly following him"... at least no one of any importance.

It does not matter who tells you a fact, a fact is a fact no matter who says it.
That being said... did you at least try, although I know it might be hard for you, to get past the fact that it's Al Gore and at least consider what he is saying?
If you cannot do that, then either:
1) stop attacking global warming through Al Gore.
2) give up on this discussion entirely because the moment we stop accepting facts because we don't like someone is the moment science fails and therefore it doesn't belong on this forum.

[EDIT]
If you did listen to what he says you would know that our evidence for global warming is more than just temperature rising. We can see clearly from the last 450,000+ years that temperature varies almost precisely with CO2 levels. However, unlike temperature which takes a while to react we can easily measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere today and it is higher than it has been in that past 450,000 year time.
Not only that, but the moment our CO2 levels make such a huge climb "conveniently" corresponds to when humans become active in industry/automobiles ect... over a 450,000 year span the timing is much too perfect to be a mere coincidence.
with all the CO2 we are dumping in the atmosphere is it really that hard to believe that we increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? I don't think that is an unreasonable claim at all.
Then take a look at this graph and tell me that temperature does not depend on CO2 concentration:
http://ryanthibodaux.greenoptions.com/files/images/co2Temperature.gif

 

[Andre]

It does not matter who tells you a fact, a fact is a fact no matter who says it.

Now, what would be facts indeed?

 

[RiseAgainst]

Now, what would be facts indeed?

Seriously, what are the facts. I'm open minded I will listen just give me these facts that no one else knows.

 

[Andre]

Well I thought that we would get some "facts" about climate from you.

Hint: peek at the other global warming thread.

 

[AntiStrange]

I apologize for not including them, but before I saw your two posts, I edited mine. So just look at it again.

 

[Chi Meson]

Hey Mentors, do we really need two endless global warming/anti-global warming threads in GD?

Do we really need even one? Though true believers from either side will never admit it, there ARE compelling arguments for both sides. I'm not impressed by anyone who acts as though they know for certain what the truth is.

The fact that believers tend (primarily) to be split on lines of clear political affiliation also makes me squint suspiciously.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Rise the easiest way to solve this is, why do you believe that climate change is not anything to worry about? I assume that by saying it's not a problem you believe it does exist?

I assume you've not read any papers on this, and it's been a long time since I have. However watch:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

This guys Climate Change Crock of the Week as they are thorough yet entertainin. To back up his position there are several paprs referenced, if you think he's bullgarbageting then feel free to read the papers yourself.

This mostly explains that it is happening and we are the cause. I can't remember if he has a vid on the probable outsomes, although there are probably several papers detailing simulations and preditions.

Unfortunately I've lost my University's access to online journal items so I can't pick them off myself.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I apologize for not including them, but before I saw your two posts, I edited mine. So just look at it again.

Thank you for at least adding in facts, you are one of the few people that I have talked to that has at least tried to use facts to make an argument.

 

[Topher925]

Please do give a link to that evidence.

Here's IPCC's synthesis report from 2007;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

And here's a link to other data provided by the IPCC;
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

Here is a document prepared by our energy secretary Steven Chu summarizing these reports
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7612.htm

In case you are incapable of reading and comprehension, here's George Crabtree to spell it out for you;
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/m...e-crabtree---the-sustainable-energy-challenge

Of course the EIA is a good source of data and statistics as well;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/climate.html

If all this evidence isn't good enough for you, you can join myself and thousands of others in computing models to predict climate change based on data from previous decades;
http://climateprediction.net/

Hint: peek at the other global warming thread.

Where is the other global warming thread?

 

[Andre]

If you did listen to what he says you would know that our evidence for global warming is more than just temperature rising. We can see clearly from the last 450,000+ years that temperature varies almost precisely with CO2 levels.

No you cannot.

First problem is that CO2 always lags the isotope proxies by a few hundred years and suspected positive feedback has never been substantiated in any scientific research paper.

The second problem is that you are dealing with the interpretation of isotope proxies, which is always an affirming the consequent fallacy.

Compare: If it rains, the street is wet. The street is wet, hence it rains.

and:

If it is warm, the isotope ratio is high. The isotope ratio was high, hence it was warm.

So could there be any other reasons for variation in isotope ratio other than ambient temperature?

see this thesis

A comparison between the seasonal extreme isotopic and temperature values points out that on timescales of seasons to several years, isotopic variability cannot be interpreted with confidence as temperature changes at the accumulation sites.

There is a whole world behind that.

 

[junglebeast]

sfgsdgsdfgdsfg

 

[Andre]

Here's IPCC's synthesis report from 2007;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

And here's a link to other data provided by the IPCC;
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

Here is a document prepared by our energy secretary Steven Chu summarizing these reports
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7612.htm

In case you are incapable of reading and comprehension, here's George Crabtree to spell it out for you;
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/m...e-crabtree---the-sustainable-energy-challenge

Of course the EIA is a good source of data and statistics as well;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/climate.html

If all this evidence isn't good enough for you, you can join myself and thousands of others in computing models to predict climate change based on data from previous decades;
http://climateprediction.net/




Where is the other global warming thread?

I know the AR4 but I did not find any evidence, only hypotheses and ideas. No; what we are looking for is fallacy-free proof that a substantial part of any warming currently or in the recent past is caused by anthropogenic activities.

the other global warming thread

 

[xxChrisxx]

I know the AR4 but I did not find any evidence, only hypotheses and ideas. No; what we are looking for is fallacy-free proof that a substantial part of any warming currently or in the recent past is caused by anthropogenic activities.

the other global warming thread

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/7/hWJeqgG3Tl8

Watch that. (Conclusion in article comparing recent warming due to anthropogenic Co2 to that of termination 3 at 6min onwards)

The article used is

"Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III"

N Caillon
Science (2003)
Volume: 299 Issue: 5613 Pages: 1728-1731Although this paper isn't specifically related to anthropogenic activites they are entioned in the conclusion, some papers concering human cauysed CO2 are cited as far as I can remember.

 

[ideasrule]

The fact that believers tend (primarily) to be split on lines of clear political affiliation also makes me squint suspiciously.

Just a note here, but I'm neither American nor politically active.

The other global warming thread is "I'm not worried about global warming; I'm worried about what people will do to stop global warming". After Andre accused me of spreading moral panic when I was actually demanding reliable sources, I walked out.

 

[Andre]

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/7/hWJeqgG3Tl8

Watch that. (Conclusion in article comparing recent warming due to anthropogenic Co2 to that of termination 3 at 6min onwards)

The article used is

"Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III"

N Caillon
Science (2003)
Volume: 299 Issue: 5613 Pages: 1728-1731


Although this paper isn't specifically related to anthropogenic activites they are entioned in the conclusion, some papers concering human cauysed CO2 are cited as far as I can remember.

In that article is found that CO2 lags the isotopes. Then it is hypothesed that there must be positive feedback. Now remember the scientific method, a hypothesis needs substantiation by a correct prediction. But to my knowledge, nowhere in the literature it has been demonstrated/proven that positive feedback can work that way. So it remains a hypothesis. And there are a lot more things going on there that did not make it to AR4

Oh and one of the problem with Milankovitch are the mega fauna grazers in the Taimyr peninsula apart from some other problems http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/288/5474/2143.

More tomorrow.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Read the whole paper, there are also a couple of cited articles that more specifically detail the affect of human caused CO2. I'm afraid I can't remember them off hand as it's been well over a year since I've read anything to do with this.

However I'm starting to suspect that no 'evidence' will ever be good enough for you (it kind of reminds me of creationists and evolution, I'm sure you arent dogmatic in your skepticism but it does seem to come across like that). Nothing can ever be fully conclusive, but there is a certin point where you've got to say 'hang on now'. That point occurred for me after I took an engineering module on sustainability and CO2, and read quite a few papers on this subject.

I used to be rather skeptical but you can sit me firmly in the proponent camp now. I still don't think it's a problem because the solution will come from engineers.

 

[Andre]

Read the whole paper, there are also a couple of cited articles that more specifically detail the affect of human caused CO2. I'm afraid I can't remember them off hand as it's been well over a year since I've read anything to do with this.

I have read Caillon et al twice, years ago. Better read Karner and Muller 2000

 

[xxChrisxx]

I have read Caillon et al twice, years ago. Better read Karner and Muller 2000

Interesting read, but doesn't change anything. On the whole there are more papers that are favourable to human caused climate change in recent years than not.

I'm not going to claim I know for sure, or that I've read them all because tbh of what I have read I can't remember most of it. I just remember the outcome that I found the conclusions quite convincing.

 

[JaredJames]

There were some dictators who were 'quite convincing' whilst giving a speech. Doesn't make them right!

 

[xxChrisxx]

There were some dictators who were 'quite convincing' whilst giving a speech. Doesn't make them right!

Doesn't necessarilty make them wrong either. Maybe convining is a word with the wrong connotations that I blindly believe what I read.

"I found that their conclusions were feasible and had merit when weighed up against other papers I had read, I then independently came to the conclusion that global warming is true and that it is most likely that humans are causing it".

"I was convinced" is rather snappier and more convenient to write.

 

[Topher925]

There were some dictators who were 'quite convincing' whilst giving a speech. Doesn't make them right!

If your developing your opinions based on what other people say and not scientific evidence and data then you need to stop posting in this forum.

Don't forget to drink the kool-aid.

 

[vibjwb]

Rush Limbaugh says that The Manmade Global Warming Hoax Thrives on Faith, Not Facts. How could Rush possibly be wrong? Rush knows everything. A lot of what I see in this thread comes from him.

 

[Phrak]

I have read Caillon et al twice, years ago. Better read Karner and Muller 2000

I'm more skeptical in this domain of global warming than you Andre. In the business of data collection human factors compell recorded values.

How good a science is global warming?

Perhaps there is a measuring rod to decide the overall value of peer reviewed papers on the topic of global warming. If so compelled we could look at various topics in physics, and count how many papers, relatively, are devoted to the criticism of the methods or data of another paper. These numbers could be compared to those devoted to the study of global warming.

 

[lisab]

Perhaps there is a measuring rod to decide the overall value of peer reviewed papers on the topic of global warming. If so compelled we could look at various topics in physics, and count how many papers, relatively, are devoted to the criticism of the methods or data of another paper. These numbers could be compared to those devoted to the study of global warming.

But wouldn't that just be an indication of where the funding is going, which can be politically motivated (especially around the question of AGW)?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter whether it's caused by us or not, what matters is that it's likely to lead to negative consequences and that we have the means to mitigate these effects. Even if global warming was natural we should try to prevent it if we could.

I see. So you believe that humans altering the climate of the Earth by using energy sources that are convenient is wrong. But even if human produced CO2 is not responsible for global warming humans should alter the Earth's climate for their own convenience? Do you really think that makes any sense?

Rush Limbaugh says that The Manmade Global Warming Hoax Thrives on Faith, Not Facts. How could Rush possibly be wrong? Rush knows everything. A lot of what I see in this thread comes from him.

Andre is a well read scientifically minded individual. He has been showing evidence that he finds contradicts AGW theories while most everyone responding to him seem to more or less assume that he is ignorant. I'd have to say that the blind faith in political advocates seems to be sitting more on the shoulders of the liberals in this thread. If you would like to represent your (and my) political philosophy well I suggest you start acting more maturely, else you set yourself in the same category of political thinkers as the dittoheads.

 

[Andre]

Thanks for the support, all. However I still sense that the quantity of research is more important than the quality of research. How did Einstein put it again as reaction to "100 authors against Einstein"?

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

Now here is http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf about the "amplification" factor of CO2 during the glacial temination. The last sentence:

The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present day and future climate.

Now what is that? Idea - hypothesis - theory -physical law? Since it is based on observation of a phenomenon it's absolutely fair to call it a hypothesis.

But hypotheses require testing before it is accepted as theory. Note that engineers have spent many semesters to master the obnoxious behavior of closed loop feedback systems. So you can't really assess a single page hypothesis about possible feedback behavior as thoroughly tested on its physical feasibility. And as far as I know no follow up study has ever been published attempting to model this assumed isotope - CO2 interaction as a positive feedback construction and if I try it myself I can see why.

 

[ideasrule]

Andre is a well read scientifically minded individual.

Then he should understand that reliable sources are needed and stop using personal attacks against opponents.

 

[Topher925]

How good a science is global warming?

Not very good at all, no matter which side of the argument you are on. The fact is that our planets climate is an EXTREMELY complex system which makes it very difficult to model and study. There are hundreds if not thousands of factors that need to be considered when developing relationships between greenhouse gas content and the amount of internal energy in the surface of the planet. Has the IPCC and EIA considered them all? I doubt it.

Currently, as far as I have researched, there is a LOT more evidence supporting climate change than not. This may change in the future as we better understand our planets climate and history along with developing better models, but from what I have seen and witnessed, the worlds climate is changing and we should do something about it.

Even if the climate isn't changing from greenhouse gas emissions, then what is the harm of becoming a more environmentally friendly society anyway?

 

[xxChrisxx]

RE: How good a science is global warming?

Not very good at all, no matter which side of the argument you are on. The fact is that our planets climate is an EXTREMELY complex system which makes it very difficult to model and study.

I see. So you believe that humans altering the climate of the Earth by using energy sources that are convenient is wrong. But even if human produced CO2 is not responsible for global warming humans should alter the Earth's climate for their own convenience? Do you really think that makes any sense?

Even if the climate isn't changing from greenhouse gas emissions, then what is the harm of becoming a more environmentally friendly society anyway?

I think this just about sums it all up for me. The point is all we know for sure is that the planet IS warming. There IS a possiblity that we are causing it. We also know that warming is generally a bad thing. However as the system is so complex it is difficult to determine the extent (if at all) the impact we are having.

The choices are:

Wait to see and continue research, but do nothing about the potential problem?
Contine research and progressively move towards a cleaner source of fuel?


As Topher mentioned what is the harm of moving towards a greener society anyway? Not only that but when one of the options carries the risk of permanent damage (which may happen anyway who knows) In this sitation I would tend to choose prudence and err on the side of caution.

It's a pascals wager sort of thing. We have nothing to lose by continuing research but making a progressive attemt to switch to a more sustainable fuel source. In the event that we are the cause of global warming we win. If we arent the cause of global warming, then we haven't lost as the research is good for when it becomes uneconomical to use fossil fuels.

If we continue along the route that TheStatutoryApe implies in the quote. If we are the cause, then by the time we realize it could be too late. If we arent the casue then there is no problem, we just have to start researching alterative fuels sometime in the future.

 

[Blenton]

then what is the harm of becoming a more environmentally friendly society anyway?

Environmentally friendly / efficient is a contradiction to what global warming nuts actually want to accomplish. Carbon credits, sequestration, blocking the suns rays are all absolute garbage and will serve only to cripple our economy.

Simply put we have no real alternative to coal since nuclear is still associated with death. Cut off coal and we're back to the stone age.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Environmentally friendly / efficient is a contradiction to what global warming nuts actually want to accomplish. Carbon credits, sequestration, blocking the suns rays are all absolute garbage and will serve only to cripple our economy.

Simply put we have no real alternative to coal since nuclear is still associated with death. Cut off coal and we're back to the stone age.

Now those nuts (on both sides) are what p*** me off about this, the answer is not to go back to living in caves and eating soil, nor just to ignore the situation and carry on burning fossil fuels merrily. The answer comes from investing in research, engineering and new technology.

A carbon offset is acutally a good idea if implememnted correctly. The thing is, anything like this is going to cost people money, which is where the real issue lies. At the moment in the UK we are taxed to oblivion on fuel, I wouldn't mind so much if that tax was actually going to help the situation, I simply suspect its going into the kitty to build more MP's a moat or pay for their porn.[/rant]

 

[vibjwb]

This is an analogy to the climate change debate.
What if an asteroid was spotted by astronomers that was big enough to do major damage to the Earth's population and it might be on a collision course with the earth. Let's say it was about twenty years out and also the astronomers were not sure that it would impact the Earth but it would be close. Should we prepare to do something? Should we prepare to meet the climate change problem even if we are not sure?

 

[Andre]

Well, you could of course think about no-regret measures, anything that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and that does not shoot oneself in foot.

But the main lesson is that fear rules as it has always done in the history of mankind. In another decade we may wonder why we lost the opportunity to go nuclear, well fear ruled there too and 'weather cooking' has been one of all times.

 

[Phrak]

Re: global warming science.

Not very good at all, no matter which side of the argument you are on. The fact is that our planets climate is an EXTREMELY complex system which makes it very difficult to model and study.

OK. But I wasn't talking about the stage, but the actors.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If we continue along the route that TheStatutoryApe implies in the quote. If we are the cause, then by the time we realize it could be too late. If we arent the casue then there is no problem, we just have to start researching alterative fuels sometime in the future.

I am all for alternative energy and getting rid of coal and oil as energy sources. Coal is probably one of the worst sources of energy we can use from what I have read. To not pollute the environment and achieve 'energy independence' are the best arguments for shifting away from oil and coal. Unfortunately they are not as sexy as 'The sky is falling!'

I just like to see more honest and respectable discussion and argument. Warming of the planet is not bad for the planet it is bad for humans. Saying that allowing the planet to warm for our convenience of energy choices is wrong but altering the planets natural climate to be more hospitable, for our convenience, is a good idea is a rather contradictory and poor argument. Either you are ok with altering the climate for our convenience or you aren't and saying its to save the planet is just plain dishonest.

 

[ideasrule]

How good a science is global warming?

Yes, I agree that it isn't good at all. For one, climate modeling is extremely complex. It isn't just because the variables are unknown; actually doing the modeling involves a huge amount of computing power. Since it obviously isn't possible to include every single water and air molecule, scientists have to split the atmosphere and ocean into different "chunks" and assume that the chunk is a single, monolithic entity. The smaller the chunks, the more accurate the modeling, but the more intensive the required computing power. Since the parameters--like how much rain forms given a certain temperature, humidity, and aerosol concentration--are not well-known, different sets of parameters have to be tested. To see which set is more reasonable, simulations are run on past climate to see how well it predicts the current climate in a process called "hindcasting". It's a complicated process, and one that isn't too accurate.

I don't know if any of you have heard of Climateprediction.net, but if not, read this:

http://climateprediction.net/

It's a distributed computing project that involves predicting the climate of the 21st century. They've a lot of computing power at their disposal, and have produced some interesting results: http://climateprediction.net/content/scientific-papers

Basically, there's a huge variation in predictions of climate sensitivity, ranging from 2-11 degrees. Much of the higher estimates have been ruled out by hindcasting, but none of the models predict a sensitivity of less than 2 degrees, and certainly none of them say the climate will remain unchanged if we keep on burning fossil fuels. One thing to note is that the scientists running this experiment are well aware of the inherent uncertainties and dedicated a paper to calculating them. Climate modeling isn't ESP research; errors are estimated just as they are in every experiment, and you won't hear a scientist proclaiming global warming as real if the forecasted temperature rise isn't significantly larger than the error.