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

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, I don't know... perhaps some empirical evidence.

- Warren

We have empirical evidence. What sort do you require?

Are you saying that all the world's climate scientists who argue this is real don't actually have any evidence?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even before learning the scientific method, when I lived a more "transcendentally recreationally" lifestyle, this was always apparent to me whenever I visited the city after being raised in rural town thick with trees and wildlife. I've wondered around for hours in Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC wondering what the place was like before we began a parasiitic relationship with our planet.

Eugene is right down the road from us.

Back later...

 

[chroot]

We have empirical evidence. What sort do you require?

Are you saying that all the world's climate scientists who argue this is real don't actually have any evidence?

I wasn't aware that there was any consensus among climate scientists that global warming is both real, and anthropogenic. It fact, I thought it was only recently that it became a consesus among climate scientists that global warming was happening at all, without regard to whether or not it's anthropogenic.

You know I'm not going to take your word for it. You've already made it rather clear that you're an alarmist on the issue, yet you're not a climate researcher, and presumably have a very weak intellectual grasp of the enormouse body of (often-conflicting) climate data. I don't mean to be offensive, but really, why should anyone believe you? Or Al Gore?

If you have evidence -- not anecdote, not argument to authority, not bandwagon consensus, not models, not simple-minded study replete with dozens of systematic errors -- then sure, bring it on. 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.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

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

- Warren

 

[Andre]

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

... The oceans have warmed significantly over the past four decades, providing new evidence that the Earth may be undergoing long-term climate change. ..

...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. These findings represent the first time scientists have quantified temperature changes in all of the world's oceans from the surface to 3000 meters depth...

What does this prove? Whodunnit?

 

[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