One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
136 replies · 21K views
chrisrandall said:
the world may be gradually warming but to say all this science stuff about it. I do agree that the world is changing and getting slightly warmer , but i do not believe that it is anything to worry about. look at the average temps they've gone up like two degrees. I have a hard time believing in all the scientificl theroies i hear about this topic. just my oppinion.
And your opinion is worth noting over that of the professionals in the field because...?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the world of unemployment, geologists have global warming to fall back on. Employment goes down, the threat of global warming sky rockets. The same is true with life science, medical and chemists; when employment is low anthrax, sars, west nile, chicken fever suddenly become world epidemics that must be cured right away. Physicists unfortunately have the extraterrestrial collision, of which few people care, but they can do the same things mathematicians and computer scientists do when Y2K and online security, cyberterrorism become front page news.
 
DrClapeyron said:
In the world of unemployment, geologists have global warming to fall back on. Employment goes down, the threat of global warming sky rockets. The same is true with life science, medical and chemists; when employment is low anthrax, sars, west nile, chicken fever suddenly become world epidemics that must be cured right away. Physicists unfortunately have the extraterrestrial collision, of which few people care, but they can do the same things mathematicians and computer scientists do when Y2K and online security, cyberterrorism become front page news.
You forgot to add the :smile: smilie to explain the context of your post!
 
Well, along the lines of the opening post, it's been a pretty freakin cold winter this year! Actual global warming would be nice right now! A winter like this, I have a hard time buying the hype.
 
I believe GW is a fact and the methane hydrate (clathrate) destabilization events described in Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum: filling an ocean? #7 are to my sense, something that has a greater than even probability of happening. The glaciers are indeed melting all over the world; the sea ice at the north pole is thinning at an accelerating pace as temps rise with the most rapidity there. The ice locked in the South Pole is also melting and calving bergs the size of small countries.
I read somewhere that there is a threshold temperature at which destabilization events become certain to happen; it is logical to assume that would happen if oceans continue to warm and clathrate melts at some finite temperature.
 
I am not an expert on global warming, but it seems to me that there is a point which is being overlooked.

Obviously there are different opinions, but does anyone really think that the probability that we are contributing to global warming is zero? Assuming that global warming would have extremely serious consequences, just what is the numerical risk we are prepared to take?

If the consequences of global warming would be serious, then perhaps a risk of 10% would be unacceptable in which case we should be taking steps to avoid the risk. Why hasn't this been considered?
 
Originally Posted by Economist:
"People obviously want cars with better gas mileage. So if it's cheap to produce such a car, then please explain to me why companies aren't doing it? After all, it'd be in their greedy, profit-maximizing self interest."

Surely that's a valid question. The technology that could be used to improve fuel efficiency is instead being used to increase power. It is not unusual now for cars to get > 1 horsepower per cubic inch, and some cars now have 300 horsepower or more. Many family cars will accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 8 seconds, which 20 years ago, would have been considered extremely fast for a family car. If modern engine technology had instead been used to improve fuel mileage, then we'd have smaller engines and cars would take perhaps 10 or 11 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph.

An otto-cycle (4-stroke, spark ignition) engine is most efficient when it is working hard. The power is controlled by the throttle valve and, when it is not fully open, power is wasted sucking air in against the vacuum created by the throttle valve (pumping losses). When a smaller engine is used, then the throttle valve is generally open farther, reducing pumping losses, and efficiency is higher. Of course this is somewhat oversimplified and there are other factors involved, but it is basically correct.

As to why manufacturers are using bigger engines than required, it seems to be because people like high power. High power must sell, otherwise car advertisements would not be so performance oriented.
 
FRE said:
Originally Posted by Economist:
"People obviously want cars with better gas mileage. So if it's cheap to produce such a car, then please explain to me why companies aren't doing it? After all, it'd be in their greedy, profit-maximizing self interest."

Surely that's a valid question. The technology that could be used to improve fuel efficiency is instead being used to increase power. It is not unusual now for cars to get > 1 horsepower per cubic inch, and some cars now have 300 horsepower or more. Many family cars will accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 8 seconds, which 20 years ago, would have been considered extremely fast for a family car. If modern engine technology had instead been used to improve fuel mileage, then we'd have smaller engines and cars would take perhaps 10 or 11 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph.

An otto-cycle (4-stroke, spark ignition) engine is most efficient when it is working hard. The power is controlled by the throttle valve and, when it is not fully open, power is wasted sucking air in against the vacuum created by the throttle valve (pumping losses). When a smaller engine is used, then the throttle valve is generally open farther, reducing pumping losses, and efficiency is higher. Of course this is somewhat oversimplified and there are other factors involved, but it is basically correct.

As to why manufacturers are using bigger engines than required, it seems to be because people like high power. High power must sell, otherwise car advertisements would not be so performance oriented.

Hey, I got quoted! :approve: That's a first for me (I think).

Anyway, good points. Especially the last paragraph which ties in the importance (and often left out) element of consumer behavior, consumer preferences, consumer demand, etc.
 
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/02/nasty-dogs.html

Nasty dogs?
by Russell Roberts

Arnold at EconLog has a very nice post on the environmental impact of dogs:

"Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV? My bet would be on the dog. I'm thinking of all of the resources that go into dog food.

You could argue that children also consume a lot of resources, but that is different. A dog does not have the potential to discover a cure for cancer. A dog is not going to provide for you in your old age.

I personally have nothing against dogs. But it does seem to me that environmentalism inevitably points toward a policy of extermination of pet dogs. Unless environmentalism is simply hatred of industry."

What's particularly interesting are the comments. People are angry. Dogs are great, they say. They make people's lives better.

No doubt. So do SUVs. So do grapes from Chile. I think Arnold was merely suggesting that there are tradeoffs. If you make tradeoffs for dogs (which of course you should), why not make them for SUVs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think SUVs are the problem. Sure, it wouldn't hurt if we all just rode a bicycle but even if we did, what are we going to do about... China. As well as other up and coming countries? That's IF we are in FACT causing the world to be warmer and it is not simply an Earth weather cycle. Underneath all that ice in the poles is ancient plant life, it's happened before. It wasn't always ice up there.
 
I have no doubt now. The indifference is unsettling though. The weather is uncontrollable but long term trends have been and are susceptible to manipulation by humans; this has been proven to a degree where the arguments against have lost much force in the face of Iraq having its first snowstorm in 100 years, the shrinking Arctic and Antarctic ice, glacial runoff that started as streams, became creeks, rivers then rapids- in places, those are indications that the pace of warming is increasing.

Epic changes will have to be implemented now but that won’t happen because too much money is involved. Not only money that would be lost because some industries would need to be shutdown if they can’t transform and adapt and others that would form to profit from the crisis and perhaps help mitigate the effects.

I can’t predict how it is going down but one of the first things that will signal the seriousness of a need to change will be disappearing coastlines and low lying islands, much sooner than the conservative estimates currently in fad. And continuing to increasingly severe weather events, I think then governments will react when there is no denying something must be done.
 
The science - just the sheer volume of studies confirming GW as opposed to the sparse counter arguments against GW – should be taken seriously. If the unstable global political environments don’t tip off mankind’s self-extermination then GW which was induced be man will if steps, even baby steps aren’t begun. :cool:
 
An interesting article from one of the UK broadsheets,

GLOBAL WARMING? IT’S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADESNEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night.

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

snip

But scientists say the northern hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades.

cont'd
http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

In realisation that the global temperatures, sea level rise and ice melt are not following the climate models' predictions there does seem to have been a subtle shift in recent months with the GW supporters rebranding their alarmist product as man-made climate change whilst quietly dropping the reference to AGW.

I suppose with all the effort expended convincing people the sky is falling it would be a shame now to let facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's too soon to know for certain whether global warming will be a problem. However, the potential consequences of global warming could be so severe that, at least in my opinion, even a 10% risk would be highly excessive. I'd rather be an alarmist and take unnecessary action to prevent the significant risk of a serious catstrophe instead of doing nothing. If we wait for 100 % certainty, it could be too late. Besides, even if global warming is not a real threat, many of the steps to prevent it would have other benefits.
 
FRE said:
It's too soon to know for certain whether global warming will be a problem. However, the potential consequences of global warming could be so severe that, at least in my opinion, even a 10% risk would be highly excessive. I'd rather be an alarmist and take unnecessary action to prevent the significant risk of a serious catstrophe instead of doing nothing. If we wait for 100 % certainty, it could be too late. Besides, even if global warming is not a real threat, many of the steps to prevent it would have other benefits.
What serious catastrophe? Even if the IPCC's projection for sea-level rise is correct then so what? According to their figures the sea may rise by 5" by 2050. Is this a catastrophe? Was the rise of 5" between 1940 and today through natural warming a catastrophe? If so it doesn't seem to have registered on the public conciousness. I can't think of many people who if asked what was the worst event of the 20th century would answer "sea-levels rose 5 inches".

I'm also curious as to what the 'other benefits' derived by CO2 reduction are? I'm at a loss to see how a reduction in economic growth, the consignment of undeveloped and developing countries to permanent energy poverty and the expenditure of trillions of dollars on a red herring has other benefits :confused:
 
FRE said:
It's too soon to know for certain whether global warming will be a problem. However, the potential consequences of global warming could be so severe that, at least in my opinion, even a 10% risk would be highly excessive. I'd rather be an alarmist and take unnecessary action to prevent the significant risk of a serious catstrophe instead of doing nothing. If we wait for 100 % certainty, it could be too late. Besides, even if global warming is not a real threat, many of the steps to prevent it would have other benefits.

I don't entirely disagree with why you have come to your conclusions but, what is it exactly that should be done? What steps should be taken to prevent "it"? And what exactly is "it". I agree we need to be responsible and limit polution in general, but what are we to do beyond we already do in the US, for example? And after that, what are we to do about everywhere outside of our borders? These are the questions I always come to and I have never gotten a straight answer.
 
There's an old Viking tale about a King who went down to the ocean's edge and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, the tide came in anyway. The King's message was one on humility.

How arrogant of we humans to think we can materially alter the climate with anything other than an all-out thermonuclear war.

So the simple answer to the question, "What can we do to prevent it?" is "Nothing". This planet is going to have it's way, the laws of physics aren't going to change as the result of a "debate", and what part of this simple article are you not intellectually capable of understanding?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
 
From the article referenced above this piece is interesting. It argues that AGW theory defies the known laws of physics.

Having detailed the atomic absorption spectrometry for the atmosphere's CO2 and it's man-made component it concludes;

Man-made CO2 cannot physically absorb more than one-millionth of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

On the face of it this seems to kill AGW theory dead?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AGW appears to have already died, except in the global warming hysterical press and TV. This article just puts a very simply explained nail in the coffin. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change just wrapped up in New York City, over 500 scientists disagreed with AGW. Looks like the author of the article was way out in front of the crowd. Best article I've read for the average non-scientist.

Here's what the New York conference concluded:

Mar 05, 2008

The Manhattan Declaration - from the 2008 International Climate Conference

2008 International Conference on Climate Change
]
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognizing that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth.”

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.
 
ecofan said:
There's an old Viking tale about a King who went down to the ocean's edge and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, the tide came in anyway. The King's message was one on humility.
Yes, and the sea roared with laughter. Cnut was the fellow's name, a fuzzy-headed liberal centuries ahead of his time.
 
ecofan said:
AGW appears to have already died, except in the global warming hysterical press and TV. This article just puts a very simply explained nail in the coffin. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change just wrapped up in New York City, over 500 scientists disagreed with AGW. Looks like the author of the article was way out in front of the crowd. Best article I've read for the average non-scientist.

Here's what the New York conference concluded:
Please post the link to the article.
 
It's http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866 and http://www.heartland.org/pdf/ManhattanDeclarationForm.pdf.

But it's probably way optimistic to think that wrong ideas die so easily, when they are so attractive and when so much is at stake. it's just starting.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to note that a large wedge of that think tanks funding comes from business interests. One of the Directors for the corporation is Thomas Walton an executive for General Motors.

If you think AGW has no influence on climate change then prove it. I think you're jumping the gun personally, from saying we are unsure how much effect it has to it has no effect. That's lazy science IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute"

The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago. It is a non-profit organization, designated 501(c)(3) by the IRS. Contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations make up the bulk of its funding.

The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment. In the past, The Heartland Institute focused on policies relevant to the Midwestern United States although they have since become nationally focused. In addition to research, the Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, and Cato Institute. The Institute's president is Joseph L. Bast.

Heartland has prompted criticism by employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil, General Motors, and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department.The institute has accepted more than US$500,000.00 in funds from Exxon and more than US$200,000.00 from Philip Morris.[4]

ecofan said:
There's an old Viking tale about a King who went down to the ocean's edge and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, the tide came in anyway. The King's message was one on humility.

Yep the Viking King of England, King Canute, incidently I've actually been to the beach where this took place, on Hayling Island nr Portsmouth, being as a I live a sparrows fart from it. This is actually more of a cautionary tale about hubris than trying to control nature, but there you go.

I do wish people would stop proclaiming global warming issues as mythical, based on mostly there own opinions though, Andre excepted. I still wonder why they refuse to listen to André's opinions on this though, is it really all one big conspiracy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's see if I understand the boundary conditions here: AGW is a fact because Al Gore says so, unless someone can positively prove otherwise. The simplest solution is to kill every human on earth, observe the result, and if warming continues afterward, Gore was wrong. A simple application of Occam's Razor.

Theorem II as proposed is the notion that any company that provides fuel for human civilization and also contributes to non-profit think tanks we don't like is prima facie suspect and likely corrupt in their motives. Solution of this equation requires Exxon stop all charitable giving, including funding cancer research. This has the added benefit of providing a modest boost to the solution to Theorem I, above.

Makes sense to me.
 
Well we are critical of scientists who publish results whilst working for Phillip Morris or BP, so I see no reason why when your largest source of income is big business, and some of your directors are executives for companies from oil and motor companies, you may well be a little more biased than scientists are generally comfortable with. That's just the way it works, sorry.
 
Schrödinger's Dog said:
Well we are critical of scientists who publish results whilst working for Phillip Morris or BP, so I see no reason why when your largest source of income is big business, and some of your directors are executives for companies from oil and motor companies, you may well be a little more biased than scientists are generally comfortable with. That's just the way it works, sorry.

This AGW theory has always struck me as a bit rediculous and now its really looking like a load of crap. Take something normal and natural a make it look like an imminent threat to mankind. I'm sure this BS will morph into something else in another decade.
 
Good scientists aren't biased by anything. You must be hanging out in a crowd of pretty lousy scientists. If "that's just the way it works" in your world, you have my sympathy. In my years of research neither I nor any of my colleagues ever paid the slightest attention to the political needs of a particular funding source. In fact, I can't recall ever seeing anyone who bent his results in any direction except to where the science led him.

We are seeing wide spread phonying of data in the AGW crowd, however. If you are a part of that crowd, then naturally your work will be biased, that's the only tool they have left in their kit.
 
I hate oil companies, but not the workers because they are just making a living, except those that get drunk or do meth in the field. My main thing against the oil companies is how they get whatever the hell they want and how wasteful and messy they are. You should see the amount of well sites here.
 
Then walk your talk by refusing to patronize them any more. Stay away from gas stations and other services who bring fuel to your town.