Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?

[Pythagorean]

And, I should note: linking to pages written by the Sierra Club automatically puts you in my crackpot corral.

- Warren

I don't know anything about the Sierra Club, I was more interested in the IPCC results they included. Where does your elitist attitude towards the Sierra Club come from?

And I should note: having an auto-switch for your crackpot corral automatically puts you in my blatent assertions corral. Mainly because I already stated that I'm not gung-ho about global change (the issue doesn't really interest me, and my end judgment is agnostic) but when I see collaboration on an international level from climatologists who are saying "YES! We are affecting our environment!" I'm not going to start poking them and asking for direct proof, mostly because I don't care, but also because they are the authorities on the subject, I am not. And as nobody sits perfectly in the middle of any issue, I lean towards trusting the climatologists.

You're being fiercly skeptical (outlined in your insult towards me) which seems just as ridiculous as people who blindly advocate lowering emissions.

 

[chroot]

I don't know anything about the Sierra Club, I was more interested in the IPCC results they included. Where does your elitist attitude towards the Sierra Club come from?

I don't trust a privately-funded environmentalist organization to tell me about the scientific veracity of climate change.

In the same vein, I don't trust insurance adjusters to tell me what kind of medical care I should get.

- Warren

 

[Pythagorean]

Let's have a look http://www.solcomhouse.com/hotwater.htm .



What does this prove? Whodunnit?

I think this has some merit worth investigating (though I have heard that the technique for these statistics is faulty)

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/cc-temp-variation.jpg

If this data is accurate, I find it interesting that the average temperature increase seems to fit nicely with the industrial age. While it may not be time to strangle emissions, it's worth researching without prejudice skepticism.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't trust a privately-funded environmentalist organization to tell me about the scientific veracity of climate change.

In the same vein, I don't trust insurance adjusters to tell me what kind of medical care I should get.

- Warren

It's becoming more an more apparent to me that I'm going to have to involve myself in politics in order to be an ethical physicist. *sigh*

(i've always avoided politics)

 

[chroot]

If this data is accurate, I find it interesting that the average temperature increase seems to fit nicely with the industrial age.

Ah, you fell for the Hockey Stick too, did you? This is precisely the reason why I don't trust the Sierra Club, or indeed any other environmentalist organization with an agenda.

Quite simply, the hockey stick was made up by Mann, by using inaccurate indicators, and analyzing those inaccurate indicators with inappropriate statistical methods. The bottom line is that Mann spent a whole bunch of time trying to find the right parameters to make exactly such a plot "pop" from his data. He decided on the conclusion he wanted to present, then adjusted his method until he made a plot that supported it.

And people think this kind of crap constitutes scientific investigation...

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

- Warren

 

[jimmie]

To my knowledge, no such empirical evidence exists, and, in my scientific opinion, indicates that the entire phenomenon of global warming is being perceived where it does not exist.

So, based upon your own limited knowledge that no such empirical evidence exists that global warming is real and anthropogenic, you have concluded that global warming "does not exist".

Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming .

The preceding quote was taken from the following linked page.

http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/l_3/climate_change_10.htm#1"

Prior to any empirical evidence collected for any phenomenon was the observation of the phenomenon, and observation was the first step in collecting empirical evidence.

For any individual to express that a particular phenomenon that they themselves have observed does not exist due to their own lack of knowledge of that particular observed phenomenon is naive, and certainly not scientific.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ah, you fell for the Hockey Stick too, did you? This is precisely the reason why I don't trust the Sierra Club, or indeed any other environmentalist organization with an agenda.

Quite simply, the hockey stick was made up by Mann, by using inaccurate indicators, and analyzing those inaccurate indicators with inappropriate statistical methods. The bottom line is that Mann spent a whole bunch of time trying to find the right parameters to make exactly such a plot "pop" from his data. He decided on the conclusion he wanted to present, then adjusted his method until he made a plot that supported it.

And people think this kind of crap constitutes scientific investigation...

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

- Warren

I haven't quite fallen for anything yet (i'm not sending anyone money or joining campaigns) but I guess I don't understand why someone would lie about this, unless its simply to keep scientists employed...

reading page now.

 

[Pythagorean]

Furthermore, another reason I don't full support 'antrhopogenic global warming' is because the data record goes back such a short time compared to how long Earth (and even life) has been around. But then, it was through the same sort of laymen literature I learned that the planet is millions of years old, could that data be flawed too?

Once skepticism starts, where does it end? Who do I trust?

I must disclaim that these are not rhetorical arguments, but inquiries. Proper employment of the scientific method (such as avoiding assertions and grant skams) is my top priority before I start doing research as an assistant or an intern.

 

[Andre]

All about the battle of the hockeystick here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

which lead the Wegman report here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

All about the battle of the hockeystick here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

which lead the Wegman report here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

and the wikipedia refference that chroot gave me refferenced a Geophysical Research Letters which I'm going to go pull right now from the shelf.

 

[Pythagorean]

All about the battle of the hockeystick here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

which lead the Wegman report here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

and the wikipedia refference that chroot gave me refferenced a Geophysical Research Letters which I'm going to go pull right now from the shelf.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't trust a privately-funded environmentalist organization to tell me about the scientific veracity of climate change.

In the same vein, I don't trust insurance adjusters to tell me what kind of medical care I should get.

- Warren

That's funny, because after you showed me the wikipedia link, I pulled the journals off the shelf that they refferenced, and guess what I found?

McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who proposed the hockey stick theory that you're behind, work for Northwest Exploration Co (which seems to have ties with oil companies) and Department of Economics.

The terms and statistical techniques described in both articles are beyond my knowledge, so I can't take sides scientifically, but from a laymen view, these hockey stick theorists sound just as credible as the Sierra Club.

 

[Andre]

Let's have a look http://www.solcomhouse.com/hotwater.htm .

...The largest warming has occurred in the upper 300 meters of the world ocean on average by 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit. The water in the upper 3000 meters of the world ocean warmed on average by 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit...

What does this prove? Whodunnit?

I think in this is the vital proof of what is causing the heat.

How do you get all that heat into the water? Think about that, pure physics.

 

[chroot]

The alarmists say we're dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and the CO2 concentrations are higher than they have been in the recent past, and that it's a greenhouse gas, and it's causing temperatures to rise, and that's going to destroy the planet.

The gist of my dissent is this:

CO2 levels are nowhere near as high now as they have been in the past, long before human civilization existed. There have been many periods of high CO2 concentration that did not correspond to high temperatures, and all of those high CO2 periods had nothing to do with human civilization.

And hey, I'm a conservationist, as I've already said. I hate pollution, and I think we certainly can change our civilization to emit a tiny fraction of what we emit now, and I think we are obligated to do so. I currently do everything I can do live a life that leaves a "small footprint" on the environment.

At the same time, I don't believe in the bandwagon-driven, fear-mongering, alarmist crap published by the Sierra Club and Al Gore.

- Warren

 

[jimmie]

CO2 levels are nowhere near as high now as they have been in the past, long before human civilization existed. There have been many periods of high CO2 concentration that did not correspond to high temperatures, and all of those high CO2 periods had nothing to do with human civilization.

Please provide the source of the CO2 information you have cited above.

 

[chroot]

Please provide the source of the CO2 information you have cited above.

Hey, no problem. 175 million years ago, CO2 reached a peak of 17 times the current concentration (6500 ppmv vs. 381 ppmv). Humans didn't exist.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

- Warren

 

[jimmie]

Here are a few quotes from a CO2 study, and the source of my information.

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

While we wait for you to provide a link to the source of your CO2 info, chroot, here is a link to the source of my CO2 info.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm"

 

[jimmie]

Hey, no problem. 175 million years ago, CO2 reached a peak of 17 times the current concentration (6500 ppmv vs. 381 ppmv). Humans didn't exist.

Is that the only empirical evidence on CO2 you used to formulate your conclusion on global warming, chroot?

 

[chroot]

Hey, that's fine jimmie -- but 650,000 years isn't very long. The Earth has been around in pretty much its present form for at least several thousand times as long as that. CO2 concentrations have dozens of times higher than they are now, for entire geological periods in the past.

The truth is, it seems that CO2 levels are at a local maximum for the past 10,000 years or so -- and this is rather unexceptional, except when unscrupulous people like Mann put it on a graph in an effort to support a foregone conclusion.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Is that the only empirical evidence on CO2 you used to formulate your conclusion on global warming, chroot?

Nope. It's just a piece of the evidence that I use to support my opinion that today's CO2 levels are insignificant in comparison to CO2 levels, created by non-human processes, that persisted for tens of millions of years in the past.

- Warren

 

[Mk]

Once skepticism starts, where does it end? Who do I trust?

I must disclaim that these are not rhetorical arguments, but inquiries.

Who is the skeptic? You must be. Who is the person you trust most? Yourself. Now go out and learn so you can rightfully trust yourself.

 

[jimmie]

It's just a piece of the evidence that I use to support my opinion that today's CO2 levels are insignificant in comparison to CO2 levels, created by non-human processes, that persisted for tens of millions of years in the past.

Whether or not the CO2 levels of "today" are insignificant in comparison to that of tens of millions of years ago is a moot point.

The CO2 levels of "today" are relevant to "today", and you and I are living "today", not "tens of millions" of years in the past.

Either data is relevant or not, and your data is not relevant to humans, chroot.

However, I would appreciate if you could provide more sources for your information on CO2, so that I may perhaps better understand your argument.

 

[chroot]

Whether or not the CO2 levels of "today" are insignificant in comparison to that of tens of millions of years ago is a moot point.

How is it a moot point? People want to believe that today's CO2 levels are extraordinarily high, and people are the only possible cause. Neither of these assertions have even the faintest ring of truth.

The CO2 levels of "today" are relevant to "today", and you and I are living "today", not "tens of millions" of years in the past.

What kind of retarded "argument" is that? Do you actually have a point?

- Warren

 

[jimmie]

For any individual to express that a particular phenomenon that they themselves have observed does not exist due to their own lack of knowledge of that particular observed phenomenon is naive, and certainly not scientific.

I already made my point, chroot.

What is your "scientific opinion", chroot, on the data I provided from the EPICA study?

 

[chroot]

That's not a point, jimmie. That's an ad hominem.

By rights, it seems I know more about this topic than you do, anyway, so you don't make a very engaging opponent. See you next time.

- Warren

 

[jimmie]

to support a foregone conclusion.

Clearly, chroot, you too are an individual that makes arguments to support foregone conclusions.

Again, can you provide additional data to support your argument on CO2? Your "piece of evidence" is questionable, and certainly not sufficient.

Again, do you have a "scientific opinion" on the EPICA data?

Any "scientific opinion" on the data provided by Andre?

 

[chroot]

:rofl: How is it questionable? Look up Royer's work, and read it yourself. You've got to be kidding me -- it's questionable? Certainly not sufficient? How was your little paragraph about the last 650,000 years not questionable and insufficient?

Ask any climate researcher -- ANY of them -- and they will freely admit that CO2 levels have been upwards of 17 times higher in the past than they are now.

The more you talk, the more obvious is your ignorance.

- Warren

 

[jimmie]

You include a link to wikipedia, which displays only a graph, based upon data which is not clear, from an associate professor of an obscure university, and you expect people to believe your argument? :rofl:

Please explain the methodology of that data; a link, perhaps.

That's not a point, jimmie. That's an ad hominem.

That was a point, chroot. How can any individual make a "scientific opinion" that excludes all possible empirical evidence known or not known?

 

[JasonRox]

I read a book from Asimov where he described how high the CO2 levels are as compared to the past and this was in 1970. Clearly, they are much higher now.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and that was one of the things Asimov described. The only difference is that the environments were different and that the CO2 levels didn't rise this quickly as it is now.

I agree with "chroot". Make your footpring on the environment smaller. It's not that hard.

Do we really need an environmental crisis to change this? Like come on guys. We should be trying to more efficient each day and so far we are getting worse.

Humans will overcome this? Are you kidding me? This attitude make people worry about nothing. Haven't you heard about those who say "I will overcome this heart problem" and died the next day? It's the same attitude. Stay healthy from day one. Common sense guys.

Note: Not a "scientific" post like you are all describing, but you both seem to be arguing for no reason because no one is going to go searching through respected journals for reference for this silly argument.

 

[Pythagorean]

Who is the skeptic? You must be. Who is the person you trust most? Yourself. Now go out and learn so you can rightfully trust yourself.

I know this is general discussion and all, but let's not rush to any conclusions that I'm not already pursuing a physics education.

Let's also not assume that I really care about pursuing an atmosphere/climatic education.

 

[Pythagorean]

I read a book from Asimov where he described how high the CO2 levels are as compared to the past and this was in 1970. Clearly, they are much higher now.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and that was one of the things Asimov described. The only difference is that the environments were different and that the CO2 levels didn't rise this quickly as it is now.

I agree with "chroot". Make your footpring on the environment smaller. It's not that hard.

Do we really need an environmental crisis to change this? Like come on guys. We should be trying to more efficient each day and so far we are getting worse.

Humans will overcome this? Are you kidding me? This attitude make people worry about nothing. Haven't you heard about those who say "I will overcome this heart problem" and died the next day? It's the same attitude. Stay healthy from day one. Common sense guys.

Note: Not a "scientific" post like you are all describing, but you both seem to be arguing for no reason because no one is going to go searching through respected journals for reference for this silly argument.

I don't know who you're addressing, but I'm not arguing, I'm discussing, and I actually did look through journals. The Geophysical Research Letters that chroot's wiki article refferenced. (I work at a research library, these things are easy to get my hands on).

The statitistics and atmospheric jargon are above my head, so I wouldn't try an argue right or wrong. I'm here to learn (mostly about scientific method in this case), which doesn't get done by nodding and smiling.

 

[ShawnD]

Not everyone has a swimming pool or can take a 6 hour long shower.I tried... oh boy did i try to take hte biggest shower last night but it didnt work too well.

Here it Edmonton the temperature has reached upwards of 55C in the sun (130F), yet I've been comfortable with no AC simply because I don't insist on wearing a wool sweater and long johns in the peak of summer. Dress for the conditions and you'll be fine. For me that is boot-cut jeans, sandals with no socks, and a button up shirt with the top 2 buttons left open. If you're really hard core you can wear shorts instead of jeans.


Has anybody considered the possibility that global warming is not caused by CO2 but by a lack of plant and animal life? I'm thinking of trees in particular. Trees don't add or remove water from the system, but they move a lot of water. Some trees have so much water passing through them you can hear it using a stethoscope. Those of you who have lived in a desert or by a lake/ocean would understand how much of a role water plays in regulating air temperature.
It's just something to think about.

 

[Andre]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/yu-dsa062205.php

The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago

Granted, with the sun getting increasly hotter with about 10% per billion years, the sun was 0,34% fainter 34 million years ago, the milankovitch insolation variation is much bigger, meaning that solar power in the Milankovitch minimums today was less than average then, 34 million years ago. Never mind, the difference is negliglible; yet, climate conditions were not much different then from nowadays. Yet five times more CO2 is around 1500-1800 ppmv whereas nowadays we are discussing 280 ppmv (preindustrual) - 378ppmv now and 500 ppmv projected for the second half of the century.

Now did anybody do some thinking about how those Tera joules of extra warmth did get into the oceans in my last post?

So how do you transfer heat, conduction, convection, radiation. What is the most effective? How about differences in infrared radiation and visible light radiation and penetration depth into water?

 

[Andre]

Has the hot thread turned cold?

Anyway, I'd like to ponder a bit about that heat in the ocean, especially the deeper levels.

First of all, the ocean floors are usually around 273K/32F/0C There is very little temperature gradient going up until the last -upper- few hunderd meters. So it appears that geothermal heat and volcanoes are not relevant in heating the oceans. It must come from above. So how about the mechanism to accomplish that?

Conduction? The heat capacity of oceans is formidable. The heat capacity of air is negliglible compared to that. Consequently the role of conduction is mostly the water giving off heat to the atmosphere not the other way around. When we add convection into the equation, we see very little in the oceans with a very stable layering. The convection cells in the atmosphere take the heat up, not down, helping to cool the oceans. And then this effect only counts for the upper layers of water. Exchange of heat further down via conduction is very slow. Hence there is very little water heating going on this way. Also, think about the time it takes to boil water in a hot air convection stove. It's not meant for that.

Consequently a mere 0,6 degrees of air temperature rise in the atmosphere due to whatever factor is not going to change the ocean temperatures that easily. This idea is sustained by the observation that the land atmospheric temperatures have seen a higher rising trend than the oceanic air temperatures.

Apparently we have to go for the radiation to heat the oceans and then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas, whereas the solar radiation is thought to have been much more constant.

So which kind of radiation is most likely to heat the water effectively?

Obviously the outcome of this question could either prove or falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to increased infrared radiation due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

 

[Origen]

I'm an orthodox Christian who believes that global warming is obvious. I watched a program on the science channel last night about global warming which confirmed the obvious.

I have a question for this forum: Why do many political Christians deny global warming?