I'm not worried about Global Warming

  • Thread starter Blenton
  • Start date
"You didn't receive a warning."
Evo
whether I did or not has nothing to do with this thread. Years ago I drank while in High School. Are you going to warn me not to drink while posting? ( I haven't had a drink in decades). This all seems very petty and a red herring that is used when losing an argument. Besides in this thread you have violated far more guidelines then I. But as I said, lets not get petty. The only reason that I mentioned it is to defend myself.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
253
727
...
It's also very misleading to say that the planet has been cooling since 2005. Three years have passed since 2005 ended: 2006, 2007, and 2008. 2008 was the tenth warmest year on record, exceeded only by years that are within the 1998-2008 period. And you can't do meaningful statistics on the remaining 2 data points.
And each of those years were cooler than 2005.
Yes, that's called doing statistics on small numbers. Once you actually plot the data, you get something like this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Uhm, do you see what your data is doing at the end of your graph?
It's fallacious to draw conclusions based upon two or three data points!
For some reason I cannot find any global warming graphs / charts that show data up to 2009. They all stop at around 2000...what's with that? I want to see the trend...
Also here you can see that 2008 has dropped back near 1997 levels globally. The year 2005 was an unusual spike, as you can see from the list.

(Jan-Dec) Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
2005 0.61 1.10
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2006 0.55 0.99
2007 0.55 0.99
2004 0.53 0.95
2001 0.49 0.88
2008 0.49 0.88
1997 0.46 0.83

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

If one does a linear regression on the temperature (satellite) for only the last eight years the slope is slightly negative. That's simply a fact, just as it is a fact that the linear slope was positive for the several decades prior. The words being used around the climate literature now are 'pause', 'lull', or 'interrupted', 'slightly cooling'. The discussion now is about natural variability and background cycles, and how likely the latest temperature lull(?) is likely to be explained by such.
[URL]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
614
wittgenstein, could you use the Quote button when you quote someone, please?
 

Evo

Mentor
22,841
2,292
I have always wondered what the average temperatures would look like if we removed all of the temperature readings from locations that weren't recorded 100 years ago. Let's go back and only show readings from the same locations during this time period in order to get an accurate picture of temperature changes. We now include temperatures from thousands of locations including over oceans, and much more accurate than ever. Has anyone created a graph to correct for this?
 
Last edited:

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
Well, we know now that the consensus was wrong.

I don't get sucked in by politically correct "consensus".
The politically correct consensus--and the popular consensus--is that global warming is still not proven yet. I don't get sucked in by political consensus, but when all scientists in a given field say that A is true and I know nothing about that field, I don't go around saying the experts are wrong and that I'm right. If I do happen to know something about the field--as is the case for planetary science and evolutionary biology--I tend to become boiling mad at the people who do that.

Global warming is not the only reason to worry about fossil fuels. Most of our oil comes from the Carboniferous era some 300 million years ago, when oxygen levels and temperatures were high and ecosystems were extremely productive. Once the existing oil reserves run out, I don't think many people will want to wait for another carboniferous era, then for another 300 million years, before getting more. As we--meaning humans--become more dependent on oil due to the improving economies of China, India, and other developing countries, it will be harder to switch to alternative energy sources, and the economy will be more heavily affected when existing oil runs out.
 

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
If one does a linear regression on the temperature (satellite) for only the last eight years the slope is slightly negative. That's simply a fact, just as it is a fact that the linear slope was positive for the several decades prior. The words being used around the climate literature now are 'pause', 'lull', or 'interrupted', 'slightly cooling'. The discussion now is about natural variability and background cycles, and how likely the latest temperature lull(?) is likely to be explained by such.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf
By "doing statistics on small numbers", I didn't mean that the temperature measurements for 2006-2008 were wrong; I was implying that it's fallacious to conclude global warming has stopped and we must therefore pump in more CO2 to prevent an ice age.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
Good start! But add in the national academies of science of all major industrialized countries, and we'll have a list that's less remotely far away from completion.
 
A

Argentum Vulpes

Well once we get all of our CO2 production down, we should go help out our solar neighbors with their global warming problem. Unless you want us to believe that our CO2 is traveling across the vast distance of space to warm up mars.

And yes I do have proof to back up my claim that Mars is also experiencing a warming trend.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Evo

Mentor
22,841
2,292
The politically correct consensus--and the popular consensus--is that global warming is still not proven yet. I don't get sucked in by political consensus, but when all scientists in a given field say that A is true and I know nothing about that field, I don't go around saying the experts are wrong and that I'm right.
It was the climate scientist I dated a few years ago, an expert that testified before congress every year, that alerted me to the fact that he was '"forced' by his superiors to slant all of his reports and requests for grants to be pro-AGW. He was infuriated. I didn't have any interest in the debate before then, and I learned that a lot of the hype on AGW is misleading. There are problems with the computer modules, there are problems with data being cherry picked. This is why an increasing number of scientists are risking their careers to come forward and raise these issues.

Someone earlier summed it up nicely that the real concern here is pollution, practises of agriculture, etc... and the need for alternative fuels. I don't like the excuse that the majority of humans are too stupid to grasp the real issues, so scare tactics need to be used, and it's ok to exaggerate because it's for a good cause.
 
Well once we get all of our CO2 production down, we should go help out our solar neighbors with their global warming problem. Unless you want us to believe that our CO2 is traveling across the vast distance of space to warm up mars.

And yes I do have proof to back up my claim that Mars is also experiencing a warming trend.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html"
The Martian atmosphere is thinner than earths, about 95% carbondioxide, and has a far lesser amount of ozone. I believe the earths atmosphere is supposed to be much better at deflecting heat and radiation from the sun. And if AGW is correct then the martian atmosphere would quite easily trap alot of heat with all of that co2 yes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
194
0
The following illustrates the growing consensus of scientific experts that believe climate change over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
...
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
...
I used to receive Engineers Australia magazine every month, and with it every month were debates against global warming. I hardly think that all the 'engineers of australia' agree with GW (in fact I think most think its false).
 
4,451
57
There are some problems with that "consensus". The latest http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
194
0
Its great to see scientists waking up from the carbon dioxide wool thats been thrown over their eyes, I hope more will change their minds in the future.

And I hope that the damage Al Gore has wrought on this world with his movie (which seemed to be the final tipping point) is minimal. Sadly if it were up to him and other global warming twits they would attempt nuke those goddamn carbon dioxide bastards out of the atmosphere at any cost...
 

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
There are some problems with that "consensus". The latest http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views [Broken].
Careful where you get your information from. That website's home page features this oversized headline:

"CO2 is 'Plant Food': Skeptical Physicist Declares 'those who want to reduce use of fossil fuels are mortal enemies of the biosphere' -- 'This is a profoundly evil act'"

I don't think even Evo would agree with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
Well once we get all of our CO2 production down, we should go help out our solar neighbors with their global warming problem. Unless you want us to believe that our CO2 is traveling across the vast distance of space to warm up mars.

And yes I do have proof to back up my claim that Mars is also experiencing a warming trend.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html"
See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070527101114.htm for another report of the same warm-up. It's due to a change in albedo resulting from dust storms, not radiative forcing. Note that on Mars, dust storms are a very different creature from the "serious" ones you sometimes hear about on Earth; they often become global and obscure the entire planet's surface, turning it into featureless. (Such was the case during the 2001 Mars opposition. Amateur astronomers who waited for closest approach to observe the planet got http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast11oct_2.htm [Broken]. Who knew that extraterrestrial weather can be more frustrating than Earth's?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4,451
57
Careful where you get your information from. That website's home page features this oversized headline:

"CO2 is 'Plant Food': Skeptical Physicist Declares 'those who want to reduce use of fossil fuels are mortal enemies of the biosphere' -- 'This is a profoundly evil act'"

I don't think even Evo would agree with that.
thanks for giving another nice example of creating folk devils and moral panic.

Some references to think about

http://www.worldofteaching.com/powerpoints/english/Folk Devils and Moral Panics' -.ppt

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mannheim/publications/cohen2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil

It appears that the creation of folks devils for anyone who dared to challenge global warming was initiated here:

...But what's not run-of -the-sty is a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue. Apparently they were standing in Enron's way.

The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to "moderate the political aspects" of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan "Blue Ribbon Commission."

The purpose of this commission was clear: high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this is simple -- just look at the latest issue of Scientific American, where four attack dogs were called out to chew up poor Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish a book demonstrating global warming is overblown.

Because of the arcane nature of science, it's easy to trash scientists. Imagine a 1940 congressional hearing to discredit Einstein. "This man actually believes the faster you drive, the slower your watch runs. Mr. Einstein, then why weren't you here yesterday?" The public, listening on radio, immediately concludes this Princeton weirdo is just another academic egghead. End of reputation.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx [Broken]

Oh and it doesn't make that dissent less real, does it? Would it be less true if ***fill in your worst enemy here*** declared that water boils at 100C or 212F or 373K?

Now about that headline, wouldn't it be worthwile to investigate the complete carbon cycle over the geologic past first to see if there may be some rationality in there or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that all Southerners are hicks; I have been privileged to know some well-educated, intelligent Southerners. But they are clearly not in the majority.
i was born, raised, and live in north central florida. that is so true.
 

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
thanks for giving another nice example of creating folk devils and moral panic.
It's called requesting reliable sources. A propaganda website that looks like the Time Cube and sounds like creationist ******** is clearly not a reliable source. Its arguments are similar to creationist ones, too: "Oh look, I found these couple of scientists who doesn't believe in A. Scientists are doubting A! The consensus is faltering!"
 
4,451
57
No it's called moral panic, but now I can thank you for demonstrating how something that orginally started as science has become something else, name it dogma, pseudo religion, politics or pseudo science, etc, whatever you like. Why? Because you declare it true by consensus and deny its falsifiability by declaring anybody who challenges it, to be a folk devil.

Science is fallacy free. But there are three major fallacies governing global warming, the argument at populum for the false consensus claim, the argumentum ad hominem (alleged oil company bribery and such) for all who oppose (and prove the non-consensus that way) and guilt by association by the comparison with young Earth creationists and/or flat eartheners and even suggestions of the holocaust (deniers).
 
Last edited:
4,451
57
Now maybe there is a misunderstanding here. We have climate issues and energy issues. Most certainly a carbon based economy will run into sustainability problems sooner or later and it we want to preserve Earth for our children, we need to put sustainability priority one on the list. Let there be no doubt about it.

On the other hand we have climate, which has done only one thing in the last 4.6 billion years, change and change again, all the time, always.

Furthermore there are physical properties to CO2, making it radiative in the Infra Red frequency bands in which Earth is emitting energy, which is likely to affect weather and climate, together with a bunch of other factors.

So obviously combining the two, it would be very convenient if it was to be made reasonable that more CO2 might ruin the climate and persuade humanity to behave better and stop emitting. There is only one problem. That can't be proven, on the contrary.

Even if more CO2 would mean a considerable warming of the climate, there is no way to predict if it is negative or positive. For instance the major warming event in the beginning of the Holocene, aka Holocene Thermal Maximum (~9000-5000 years ago) brought very favorable conditions in Siberia and in the Arctic, as well as it brought the African Humid Period, which turned the Sahara into a lovely green place and many early cultures started to develop and bloom in that period. So why would a warming be catastrophic now?

So it is unsure how much warming more CO2 will bring and if that warming is disastrous or beneficial. The irrevocable tying of climate disaster to carbon dioxide is likely to backfire once it is clear that either there is no global warming coming or that it is only to the benefit of currently barely inhabitable areas, albeit in 10 or 20 or 100 years. People are going to be very angry when they start to realize that they had to ruin their economy for nothing, because science said so but science was wrong. Will science ever be trustworthy again?

Certainly we must minimize our carbon footprint and conserve energy, by all means but for a real reason. I ride a bike and you?
 
Last edited:
Now maybe there is a misunderstanding here. We have climate issues and energy issues. Most certainly a carbon based economy will run into sustainability problems sooner or later and it we want to preserve Earth for our children, we need to put sustainability priority one on the list. Let there be no doubt about it.

On the other hand we have climate, which has done only one thing in the last 4.6 billion years, change and change again, all the time, always.

Furthermore there are physical properties to CO2, making it radiative in the Infra Red frequency bands in which Earth is emitting energy, which is likely to affect weather and climate, together with a bunch of other factors.

So obviously combining the two, it would be very convenient if it was to be made reasonable that more CO2 might ruin the climate and persuade humanity to behave better and stop emitting. There is only one problem. That can't be proven, on the contrary.

Even if more CO2 would mean a considerable warming of the climate, there is no way to predict if it is negative or positive. For instance the major warming event in the beginning of the Holocene, aka Holocene Thermal Maximum (~9000-5000 years ago) brought very favorable conditions in Siberia and in the Arctic, as well as it brought the African Humid Period, which turned the Sahara into a lovely green place and many early cultures started to develop and bloom in that period. So why would a warming be catastrophic now?

So it is unsure how much warming more CO2 will bring and if that warming is disastrous or beneficial. The irrevocable tying of climate disaster to carbon dioxide is likely to backfire once it is clear that either there is no global warming coming or that it is only to the benefit of currently barely inhabitable areas, albeit in 10 or 20 or 100 years. People are going to be very angry when they start to realize that they had to ruin their economy for nothing, because science said so but science was wrong. Will science ever be trustworthy again?

Certainly we must minimize our carbon footprint and conserve energy, by all means but for a real reason. I ride a bike and you?
i completely agree in every aspect. and the idea that people truly understand the environment and the complexities of the weather doesn't hold much water.
 

ideasrule

Homework Helper
2,266
0
If you don't understand the need for reliable sources, I'm not interested in debating.
 
4,451
57
If you don't understand the need for reliable sources, I'm not interested in debating.
I still don't get it, so some source reports the existence of an open letter of scientists dissenting the "consensus". Now how reliable is that message? Nowadays it's easy to find out. See/google if there are other, independent sources reporting the same. So, we did that and it proved to be true. That letter does exist.

So what tell that about the (unreliable?) source. It was correct, so why would this source be considered not reliable? Because it was made that way? Wasn't it just scapegoated (if that's a word), -made suspect- because it did not follow the consensus?

How about sources that routinely fire a bunch of fallacies, ad hominems, poisoning the well, guilts by associations etc while making a point, succesfully discredit the opponent to undermine its reputation as a reliable source. Successfully, because it is so attractive if they were to be right and the opposition was to be wrong. http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medievalglobalwarming.html [Broken]...

..When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.
But why would those 'sources' need to do that, using a maximum of fallacies? If there was a rock solid proof of their point, there is no need to make folk devils. So how about the reliability of sources that seem to have only one purpose, discredit sceptical noises?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"We all know that the financial stakes are enormous in the global warming debate — many oil, coal and power companies are at risk should carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases get regulated in a manner that harms their bottom line. The potential losses of an Exxon or a Shell are chump change, however, compared to the fortunes to be made from those very same regulations."
From the site Andre gave (post 66)
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

The global conspiracy has even taken over the oil industry's geologists?


You keep mentioning that one should not accept consensus opinions and say that to do so is argument at populum.
From the site given by Andre ( post 69)
"Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.

2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.

3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration."
 
Last edited:
I think it was Carl Sagan ( I could be wrong) that said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example if you told me that a mouse was in the next room I would require little evidence to believe you. However, if you said that a moon man was in the next room I would require a ton of evidence to believe you. When you claim that every scientific organization of national or international standing is part of a global conspiracy, I require a lot of evidence.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top