Continued Global Warming Discussion

[Utrecht]

As promised, here is my responses to the Global Warming question positioned in the Palin thread.

Let's suppose that you're right for a moment. Let's suppose that volcanic activity is the real culprit, but that the cause is still CO2 emissions. Wouldn't you agree that the amount of CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere is at least contributing to the problem? Should we continue to do this or should we minimize its impact?

Actually there is a bit more to the Volcanic emmisions story, the jury is still very much up in the air - especially since it is beleived that many of the other gases releases are considered cooling gases - effectively cancelling the effect of CO2 release

Now to your question - the thing is that the data does not support this conclusion.

If you look at the GISS data from 1880 to 2000 you will see that temperatures rose steadily from 1886 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000. However, temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1970. The whole time CO2 have continued to increase. If CO2 did infact that causes increases, why would temperatues actually decrease?



To put it another way, say you take your family camping in the woods and when you get there, you find the place littered with cans, wrappers, and other garbage that people have left behind. Let's also say that you don't have the inclination to pick up the mess that's already there. Now, over the course of a weekend outing, you add your own junk to the mess. Do you clean up your own junk to at least make it the same experience for the next people to use that location, or do you leave it and shrug your shoulders, because, hey, it was already littered?


Silly example - but to make your anaolgy closer, you need add in the fact that the campground is continuosly absorbing the trash into the ground - and the fact that it costs significant amount of cash to pick things up...


If it has risen over the last 20K years, that still doesn't account for the current spike. Frankly, I'm not keen on another ice age, so some global warming isn't the worst thing in the world, but we really might not want to see what happens if this trend is allowed to continue to its ultimate conclusion. I like living in a country that can provide food for the rest of the world. I'd hate for us to have to give that advantage away to Canada (suck it C'nooks!)


First off, not if - it has - go ahead and refer to Jouzel 2007 study of the Vostok Ice sheets. Additionally, the increase (and spike) coincides with two other factors

1) a decrease in the amount of Dust in the Air (one of the suspected causes of the little ice age from the Middle Ages)

2) increase in urbanization and the change in land use around the measuring sites (for example look at R. Brohms stude "Urban Bias in temperature time series - a case study for Vienna, Austria" Climate Change 38 (1998) and Mckendry, Ian "Applied Climetology No 4 (2003):597-606)

Utrecht can you provide any vetted journal research papers on global warming not being contributed to by humans instead of a list of people? More interesting, list the percentage of vetted journal research papers on each side.

This is certainly a fair request - but difficult to comply with - getting past the fact that I am not going to spend my time determinng % vetted journal research on each side.

You are faced with the inherent bias in the academic community against anything that contradicts the "accepted" belief of Global Warming being caused by Humans - and more specifically by fossile fuel burning. There is a reason why so many critics are retired - they no longer need to compete for dollars controlled by and blessed by people who have vested interst in the keeping the environmental movement going (see Mark Lilla "The Reckless Mind: Intillectuals in Politics (2001) and Paul Gross/Norman Leavitt "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science" (1994) - specifically Chapter 6 "The Gates of Eden" for the discussion on environmental science and academic critsism.


And in the spirit of Singularity's and by lesser extents' Varaj request, here are a series of papers/books/studies that leave but the source and the effect of C02 and mankind very much in question:

Bjorn Lomborg. The Skeptical Environmentalisnt. Cambridge University Press 2002. (this is perhaps the most famous counter view)

Michael Pason Global Warming: The Truth behind the Myth 2002 - granted it was done by a professor of health sciences - not a climitologist - but it is a review of the data more than deriving any specific conclusions.

Santer B.D. (and others) "A search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere" Nature 382 pgs 39-46

Fred Singer. Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1998) A retired professor who has held numerous government jobs related to the environment.

Pielou, E.C. After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America - this is good to review for how glaciar data is analyized (or should be) and how dramatically our planet has changed in the last 20,000 years.

There are others - but this is a good start.

[Varaj]

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

So if I am to understand correctly there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to cover up the truth? Isn't that the argument that anti-vaccine and no moon landing folks use?

Note: Also until about 3 weeks ago my position was exactly the same as Utrecht. I started heavily researching it about then and have since decided I was wrong.

[Name Lips]

The problem isn't proving that CO2 emissions are having an effect - the problem is proving how much of an effect. Geologically speaking, we're still emerging from an ice age and a certain amount of warming is to be expected. But proving what the climate would look like right now, if humans had never begun polluting the environment with greenhouse gases, is difficult or impossible. So scientists use their expertise to make educated guesses - and to the lay person, the educated guesses from both "sides" are just as over their head, and thus equally plausible. Which leads to people choosing the side that "sounds right" and supports what they already believe, instead of the side with the best science behind it.

[Singularity]

The problem isn't proving that CO2 emissions are having an effect - the problem is proving how much of an effect. Geologically speaking, we're still emerging from an ice age and a certain amount of warming is to be expected. But proving what the climate would look like right now, if humans had never begun polluting the environment with greenhouse gases, is difficult or impossible. So scientists use their expertise to make educated guesses - and to the lay person, the educated guesses from both "sides" are just as over their head, and thus equally plausible. Which leads to people choosing the side that "sounds right" and supports what they already believe, instead of the side with the best science behind it.

Speaking of ice ages, there's nothing saying that we wouldn't be heading into another one if nature were to take its course without our interferance.There was a mini-ice age a couple hundred years ago during the American revolution. Also, I don't know how the rest of the world has been this year, but my area has been far colder than normal. We had one of the coldest winters on record, two inches of snow fall in the middle of June, and summer is clearly over already (usually it continues well into Spetember, if not part of October). I had never seen a summer as hot or as long lasting as last summer, and now I've never seen such a short and mild summer as the one we're currently coming off of. I'm not sure what to make of it, other than that we've probably just entered into another one of those multi-year warming/cooling trends.

[Name Lips]

With global warming, it's just the average temperature of the globe that's going up. Certain regions will get colder, and certain regions (like my own desert) will get wetter.

But with enough warming, even if our own corners are getting colder or nicer, the coastal regions are in for a bit of trouble.

This happened before,. It's amazing how many ruins are about 1/2 mile offshore - worldwide. The sealevel is rising - but not just rising, it's still rising, just like it has been for a while.

But how much faster are we helping it rise? How much higher will it get because of our continued interference? Do we have the power to slow climate change beyond the degree to which we're influencing it? These are the questions I want to see answered.

[Dacke]

Another important question is: assuming man-made global warming is true, how much would stopping it cost, and would those resources maybe be better spent on reducing the effects of global warming?

[Singularity]

Another important question is: assuming man-made global warming is true, how much would stopping it cost, and would those resources maybe be better spent on reducing the effects of global warming?

Ever hear the old adage that an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure?

[Dacke]

But in this case, the ounce of prevention entails pretty much wrecking our economy. Our way of life is based on having cheap energy and transportation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. We should look into alternate energy sources, and build more nuclear plants (which is the only viable option in the medium run). But if we pull the brakes too hard, we won't have the ability to do those changes.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I can relate the term Global Warming into something more tangible.

They are now predicting the Arctic sea ice will be completely gone from July through September, starting in 2013. This will have consequences which can be spelled out in detail.

The prevailing westerlies will shift northward, carrying their rains with them.
Cold fronts from the north will be less cold during the summer, and they will penetrate far less southward.
The horse latitude highs (which produce the dry belt) will strengthen and move northward.
The doldrums and the tropical alluvial zone (tropical waves, troughs of low pressure and rain and thunderstorms) will move north and widen.

The Labrador Current will warm greatly and weaken.
The Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean north of Alaska and northeast Siberia will GREATLY warm.
The Greenland Sea will GREATLY warm.
The surface waters of the central Arctic will GREATLY warm, and the waters around Spitzbergen and the Barents Sea will also warm considerably.
The northeast Pacific will warm, the California current will warm (and upwelling will be suppressed or may collapse.)
Hudson Bay will GREATLY warm, and it's ice-free season greatly increase.
The Great Lakes will warm considerably, and Lake Superior will GREATLY warm.

Warm, tropical air will penetrate to latitudes where it is not normally found. Hot and humid, or hot and dry weather will be commonplace in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax, and St. Johns.
Further north, intrusions of tropical air will occur in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Thompson, Churchill, Landsdown House, Labrador City, and Goose Bay.

Here in Florida, temperatures will rise with water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, which will warm up earlier and cool later. Warmer waters mean warmer nights, more thunderstorms, higher humidity, a more equatorial summer climate all around. Hurricanes will probably increase in number as shear from the Westerlies moves away and the upper airs calm. A warmer Atlantic is likely to result in more powerful hurricanes, and they will strike as warm-core systems (true hurricanes) much further north, perhaps even into Europe.

Greenland, will begin melting much more rapidly than it is currently melting, greatly increasing the rate of sea level rise, causing an increase in coastal erosion and flooding, along with heightened damage from hurricanes.

There will also be major shifts at the Equator, since the doldrums will move farther north during the Northern Summer. Drought will afflict regions currently wet, and many regions will become hotter (because there are no clouds to mitigate the equatorial sun.)
For example, in much of the Amazon, it may become too dry for forest, and the region revert to Tropical Savanna.
Over the ocean at the equator, more sun equals more heat, to aid the ocean in warming, affecting the ENSO in the Pacific (possibly making El Nino more common and more severe.) ENSO is connected in some way to the Arctic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation may permanently shift to the Warm Mode, affecting the ENSO situation even further.

These effects will cascade into the Southern Hemisphere, producing further effects there, although the exact nature of these effects are not clear. Drought could afflict many places, creating a dry belt where none currently exists in places. Longer dry periods could mean hotter temperatures. Increased heat could intensify the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and Winds. Rising seas could further destabilize the Antarctic Ice Sheets.

All of this, starting in only 5 years, since the predictions are for a seasonally ice-free Arctic by 2013.
Note that a seasonally ice-free Arctic may eventually lead to an Arctic that is free of sea ice the year around, something which has not happened for 2 million years.
The reason for this is the North Atlantic Drift pours warm water into the Arctic Ocean the year around. Currently, this heat is expended in melting ice. If there is no ice, it goes directly into warming the water. Warmer water does not wish to refreeze, which in turn means less ice. Less ice means a more rapid melting, allowing the water to be warmed more than before. More warm water means even less refreezing, which means even warmer water, in a chain reaction.
Also, the incredible cold that is normal over Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Canada will be increasingly mitigated by a warm, wet, Arctic Ocean. Clouds and humidity pouring in from what used to be a frigid, dry, ice-covered region of ocean, will disrupt the continental cooling effect.
This will lead to a feedback that will produce even warmer weather, further shifts in the westerlies, greater melting of permafrost, and greater melting of ice.

It would appear that we will get to see all this happen in our lifetimes.

[Lmik]

It would appear that we will get to see all this happen in our lifetimes.

Nah! We will all be killed by them turning on the particle accelerator in a month or so.

[Ergeheilalt]

But in this case, the ounce of prevention entails pretty much wrecking our economy. Our way of life is based on having cheap energy and transportation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. We should look into alternate energy sources, and build more nuclear plants (which is the only viable option in the medium run). But if we pull the brakes too hard, we won't have the ability to do those changes.

A Good Cost Benefit analysis also looks at what are the costs of taking no action. While we don't know with certainty what those effects would be, we can err on the side of caution and just clean up our shit. Yeah, the economy takes a hit in the short term, but long term economics would be much better off. People are just afraid of change and I think that is why there is the drive to create a controversy where there isn't one.

[Name Lips]

I also suspect environmentalism is adding to the economy as much as it is hurting it. All those scientists, regulators, new industries, research, manufacture, development, new infrastructure... somebody builds them. Somebody is getting paid to do it. Instead of looking at it as a cost, look at it as providing jobs.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(sighs)

You know what one of the worst aspects of the situation is?

If we stop polluting the air with aerosols the warming effect of our pollutants doubles.
If we continue to pollute the air with aerosols, we also continue with the CO2, and carbon particulates depositing on the Arctic sea ice.
Either way, the Earth warms.

You know, it would be nice if the warming was merely a political talking point, something that one could forget after an election. Unfortunately it is not. It is very real indeed.
When I first started researching this subject, in 1981, the Arctic Basin and surrounding smaller ice regions were covered in multi-year ice. Today, the Arctic basin and surrounding areas areas nearly free of anything but New Ice (1 year ice, thin, weak, easily melted.)
As I write this, right now, the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage are open, the Arctic is at it's 2nd lowest ice extent on record (in both area and extent) and is close to breaking last year's all time record on extent (it is at 3.2 million square kilometers, compared to last year's record of 3.0 million square kilometers.)

The Earth caught a chill this year, partially due to a massive and prolonged La Nina in the Pacific. Ice melt was very slow and greatly delayed in the Bering Sea, and all along the northern Russian coast. Even after the melt finally occurred, water temperatures were well below normal. I thought the Arctic sea ice was well on it's way to a recovery from last year.
However, the La Nina faded, warmer water flooded the Bering Sea and points north, and then the ice started collapsing back rapidly once again, in August. Temperatures once more rose way above normal (although not quite as high as last year), and storms are helping to break up the ice. There shouldn't be hardly any truly old ice (more than 5 years old, harder than nails pack ice) left in the Arctic by the end of this year.

[Utrecht]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

So if I am to understand correctly there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to cover up the truth? Isn't that the argument that anti-vaccine and no moon landing folks use?

Note: Also until about 3 weeks ago my position was exactly the same as Utrecht. I started heavily researching it about then and have since decided I was wrong.

The analysis above differs somewhat from what I have seen - and it further does not account for my point that peer review is an imperfect manner method of vetting highly politicized areas of research.

Not that I am suggesting that there is something as organized as a conspiracy - but there is an attitude of hostility towards dissenting opinions (Paleontology is another field notorious for this) - I point you towards the vitrolic attacks that Lomborg has undergone in his review of the topic - that ultimately dissuades active professors from researching and publishing dissenting views - especailly when their lively hood resides on getting a paper successfully reviewed so that they can get their next grant. Consequently, it is safer (and puts food on the table) to toe the party line.

Again, nothing official - but the system definately discourages dissenting opinions.

As to the effect of CO2 and mankinds potential contribution to it - even the IPCC is challenged on this (and the IPCC report appears to inaccurately account for the changes in land use during the temperature/CO2 study length - typically assigning a urban addition of .3 C when it is demonstratably in the 2-3C range for heavily urbanized areas - look at the difference in temperature increases between Albany and New York City). Further, the IPCC is constantly updating modifying their models - effectively saying that climateology is as much art as it is science.

Again, before I get labeled a tool of the big oil or something similar - Carbon Neutrality/Green Lifestyly is good and I believe that we should move towards this - I just disagree with it being Revolutionary (preffing a slower Evolutionary approach) and being government mandated - preferring market driven solutions.

Finally, on the idea (and Obama's claim here irritates me) of creating new Green jobs is not accurate since Green jobs dont represent a net new job, but the moving of a traditional manufacturing/energy job to a green job - effectively less than 100k net new jobs will be created (which is certainly great for those 100k people - but not the job creation revolution people think it is - look at Biofuels as another example of jobs being retasked.)

[Ancalagon]

Nah! We will all be killed by them turning on the particle accelerator in a month or so.

... you're kidding right? :grey:

[Lmik]

I never Kid! I am always deadly serious! Everything I say must be taken as irrefutable wisdom. I live about as far from Switzerland as possible and thus hope that the Hadron collider froms a neat little tunnel from Europe to New Zealand so we can catch the train to Germany instead of having to fly via LA.

[there_is_no_bob]

...

Again, nothing official - but the system definately discourages dissenting opinions.

...

Further, the IPCC is constantly updating modifying their models - effectively saying that climateology is as much art as it is science.

Wow.

...That's all I've got. Wow.

[Singularity]

Not that I am suggesting that there is something as organized as a conspiracy - but there is an attitude of hostility towards dissenting opinions (Paleontology is another field notorious for this) - I point you towards the vitrolic attacks that Lomborg has undergone in his review of the topic - that ultimately dissuades active professors from researching and publishing dissenting views - especailly when their lively hood resides on getting a paper successfully reviewed so that they can get their next grant. Consequently, it is safer (and puts food on the table) to toe the party line.

Ah, but this argument ignores the fact that scholars, particularly scientists, love to argue amongst themselves. Grants will happen regardless of the results they produce, as long as the dialogue remains open and productive. Many of the existing dissenting scientists are on Big Oil's payroll. The oil industry has a reason to want to plant the seed of doubt in people's mind because that is enough to keep them making money hand over fist.

To summarize the analysis above, serious debate on this topic is closed, and the dissenters opinions are fringe and are not entirely unlike the dissenters in the debate over whether tobacco use causes cancer. We all know it does and the people trying to prove otherwise are just the pawns of an industry that is desperate to avoid taking a hit.

As to the effect of CO2 and mankinds potential contribution to it - even the IPCC is challenged on this (and the IPCC report appears to inaccurately account for the changes in land use during the temperature/CO2 study length - typically assigning a urban addition of .3 C when it is demonstratably in the 2-3C range for heavily urbanized areas - look at the difference in temperature increases between Albany and New York City). Further, the IPCC is constantly updating modifying their models - effectively saying that climateology is as much art as it is science.

It is true that all scientific models need to be scrutinized for accuracy and updated accordingly. The problem is that much of what I've heard is that the models are showing that we could see a much more rapid and severe change than what was originally predicted. The new models aren't giving us better scenarios, they're giving us worse ones.

Again, before I get labeled a tool of the big oil or something similar - Carbon Neutrality/Green Lifestyly is good and I believe that we should move towards this - I just disagree with it being Revolutionary (preffing a slower Evolutionary approach) and being government mandated - preferring market driven solutions.

So you admit that it would be good to cut back our CO2 emissions, you just don't believe that it should be government mandated. I would argue that the market really has no incentive to develop greener technologies. If a car manufacturer can make a vehicle that gets 80 MPG, the oil companies are going to see their sales drop to 25% of their current level. That would devastate their business. Wouldn't it be worth a good chunk of money for them to influence the car manufacturers not to release that technology yet? Gas stations would also lose money, the car dealerships would be left with millions or billions of dollars worth in unsellable vehicles while they're waiting for the new ones to come in.... Where are the market conditions that would drive such a change?

Finally, on the idea (and Obama's claim here irritates me) of creating new Green jobs is not accurate since Green jobs dont represent a net new job, but the moving of a traditional manufacturing/energy job to a green job - effectively less than 100k net new jobs will be created (which is certainly great for those 100k people - but not the job creation revolution people think it is - look at Biofuels as another example of jobs being retasked.)

Hey, retasked jobs is fine with me. Not everything we do in this country needs to result in greater employment. If we can lead the world to a cleaner environment, that's enough. Lower pollution, reduce the damage to the environment - that's enough. If there are other benefits, then that's wonderful, but I hardly consider that something worth getting hung up on.

[Varaj]

The analysis above differs somewhat from what I have seen - and it further does not account for my point that peer review is an imperfect manner method of vetting highly politicized areas of research.


So do you have any research published in vetted journals? What do you think is a better process than peer review.


Not that I am suggesting that there is something as organized as a conspiracy - but there is an attitude of hostility towards dissenting opinions (Paleontology is another field notorious for this) - I point you towards the vitrolic attacks that Lomborg has undergone in his review of the topic - that ultimately dissuades active professors from researching and publishing dissenting views - especailly when their lively hood resides on getting a paper successfully reviewed so that they can get their next grant. Consequently, it is safer (and puts food on the table) to toe the party line.

Also that the US Government is behind it all. You are seriously arguing that the Bush administration, who controls the vast amount of grants in the US, isn't willing to back research against man made global warming?

Again, nothing official - but the system definately discourages dissenting opinions.

You mean creationists claim there is a hostile environment in the study of paleontology? :boggle:

Well it is certainly an interesting theory on your part that the world scientific community is effectively in a vast conspiracy that American grant money controls. One that is so effective that 100% of all published research papers fall inline with it. That is exactly the argument that flat earth folks and the moon landing people use. Can you explain to me how this conspiracy theory on your part is different than theirs?

[AZRogue]

There still are some scientists who dispute that humans are responsible for the earth's warming: Link. (http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm)


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Not that I'm trying to really argue that humanity is not behind global warming, just that there are still some scientists that aren't convinced.

[Varaj]

There still are some scientists who dispute that humans are responsible for the earth's warming: Link. (http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm)

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.



Not that I'm trying to really argue that humanity is not behind global warming, just that there are still some scientists that aren't convinced.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but when it comes to vetted research on the subject the vast majority of research comes to the conclusion that humanity is impacting it.

[Utrecht]

Ah, but this argument ignores the fact that scholars, particularly scientists, love to argue amongst themselves. Grants will happen regardless of the results they produce, as long as the dialogue remains open and productive. Many of the existing dissenting scientists are on Big Oil's payroll. The oil industry has a reason to want to plant the seed of doubt in people's mind because that is enough to keep them making money hand over fist.


Please cite where the dissenters are on Big Oils payroll...

Further arguing amounst oneself is entirely different that submitting papers for peer review - arguing is viable debate - peer review affects people's professional standing and paychecks.


To summarize the analysis above, serious debate on this topic is closed, and the dissenters opinions are fringe and are not entirely unlike the dissenters in the debate over whether tobacco use causes cancer. We all know it does and the people trying to prove otherwise are just the pawns of an industry that is desperate to avoid taking a hit.


...serious debate on this topic is closed.... ...fringe.... .....We all know.... ....pawns of industy....

Come back to me when you lay of the retoric.

To summarize - serious debate on this topic (human contribution to global warming) is not closed - please see the list of cites and recommended reading in my first post.


It is true that all scientific models need to be scrutinized for accuracy and updated accordingly. The problem is that much of what I've heard is that the models are showing that we could see a much more rapid and severe change than what was originally predicted. The new models aren't giving us better scenarios, they're giving us worse ones.


Then you need to read further - again, before your close your mind off to this - please review the reading I presented above. Further, I see that you have NO explanation for why global temperatures went down from 1940 to 1970 even though human production of CO2 went up - or how two areas less than 150 miles apart (New York City and Albany) can have temperature increase differences in the 2-3C range (similar situations occur in for Japan when you compare Tokyo to rural Japan and for England - Manchester vs. Rural England - so it is not a local US thing)


So you admit that it would be good to cut back our CO2 emissions,

Yes, I believe that reducing CO2 is a good thing - just like I believe you should leave your camp site as clean as when you leave it.


you just don't believe that it should be government mandated. I would argue that the market really has no incentive to develop greener technologies. If a car manufacturer can make a vehicle that gets 80 MPG, the oil companies are going to see their sales drop to 25% of their current level. That would devastate their business. Wouldn't it be worth a good chunk of money for them to influence the car manufacturers not to release that technology yet? Gas stations would also lose money, the car dealerships would be left with millions or billions of dollars worth in unsellable vehicles while they're waiting for the new ones to come in.... Where are the market conditions that would drive such a change?


Then you have not being paying attention to the society and its changes recently - People want greener technologies - they are willing to pay a higher amount for them - be it a status or a moral sense - and the market is responding - all without government involvement. And BTW, dealerships are sitting on billions of dollars of inventory that they cant sell (look at the incentives they are offering on SUV - great time to buy one) whereas, cars like the Prius or Smart have yearlong waiting lists.....

So from my perspective - no, it would not be worth a "good chunk of money" - but that is my view of goverment, which conflicts with yours (and there is nothing wrong with that).





Hey, retasked jobs is fine with me. Not everything we do in this country needs to result in greater employment. If we can lead the world to a cleaner environment, that's enough. Lower pollution, reduce the damage to the environment - that's enough. If there are other benefits, then that's wonderful, but I hardly consider that something worth getting hung up on.

OK that is fine - but please don't buy into the bullshit hype that a Green Economy is suddenly going to create millions of jobs.

[Name Lips]

Frankly, if I were a genius engineer and wanted to make lots of money, I'd see if I could design a large-scale CO2 scrubber. One that could do the work of a hundred square acres of jungle, compressed into a single building. Bonus points for being totally solar powered, just like plants.

You know how much governments would pay for this thing if it meant not having to pay the cost of limiting CO2 emissions in other industries?

[Utrecht]

Damn, should have done Multi-Quote

So do you have any research published in vetted journals? What do you think is a better process than peer review.

At the PHD level - no, I have dealt with it a little bit for my masters. However, my sister has - quite a bit - and has grumbled how much high-school politics are involved


You mean creationists claim there is a hostile environment in the study of paleontology? :boggle:


No, that is not at all what I am saying - but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Look to the debates around Dinosaurs are warm blooded or not - knife fights look pleasent.


Well it is certainly an interesting theory on your part that the world scientific community is effectively in a vast conspiracy that American grant money controls. One that is so effective that 100% of all published research papers fall inline with it. That is exactly the argument that flat earth folks and the moon landing people use. Can you explain to me how this conspiracy theory on your part is different than theirs?

OK, let me very clear for you this time - I NEVER CLAIMED A CONSPIRACY - in fact I SPECIFICALLY STATED IT WAS NOT. only that the system rewards conformity. As far as your flat earth example - I can cite one where the entire scientific community was in agreement - but wrong - the Eugenics debate in the 1920-1940s.

As far as your study goes - then I would state that the study is flawed. I cited several dissenting opinions/papers in my first post that fall into the study's time period.

[Name Lips]

Hm... I just read an article on how the way scientists publish their findings is changing. I'll go post that. It deserves its own thread.

[Varaj]

No, that is not at all what I am saying - but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Look to the debates around Dinosaurs are warm blooded or not - knife fights look pleasent.

Do both sides get published?


OK, let me very clear for you this time - I NEVER CLAIMED A CONSPIRACY - in fact I SPECIFICALLY STATED IT WAS NOT. only that the system rewards conformity. As far as your flat earth example - I can cite one where the entire scientific community was in agreement - but wrong - the Eugenics debate in the 1920-1940s.

You claim there is a "party line" controlling grants, who is the party? In the US the federal government provides most grants, are you suggesting the US Federal government has a "party line" for not providing grants to researchers that don't support global warming influenced by humans?

How was their a debate on Eugenics if the entire scientific community was in agreement?


As far as your study goes - then I would state that the study is flawed. I cited several dissenting opinions/papers in my first post that fall into the study's time period.

Opinions aren't research and that is the main concern with the anti-human influence group. They are, generally speaking, non-subject oriented folks claiming the actual folks doing the research are poopy heads.

I would also point out the abstract for one of the papers you sited.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6586/abs/382039a0.html
The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability.

So how is it that paper defends the position that humans are 100% not influencing the climate?

[Utrecht]

Do both sides get published?

Originally no - the 1950/1960ss were exceptionally hostile to this viewpoint - it was not until the work done by Horner in the 1970s (whose original papers were savagely attacked) that it was even cosidered worth reviewing.



You claim there is a "party line" controlling grants, who is the party? In the US the federal government provides most grants, are you suggesting the US Federal government has a "party line" for not providing grants to researchers that don't support global warming influenced by humans?


not so much a party line as a systematic bias more specifically that in order to be considered for grants, you have to successfully publish and to successfully publish, you need to get documents that will be successfully vetted by compatriots (who in many cases happen to be compeating for the same bucket of money) - and the best way to get documents vetted is to have them adhere to the base assumptions that peers expect.



How was their a debate on Eugenics if the entire scientific community was in agreement?


It wasn't until after World War II that the Eugenics debate was opened. The history of Eugenics is pretty



Opinions aren't research and that is the main concern with the anti-human influence group. They are, generally speaking, non-subject oriented folks claiming the actual folks doing the research are poopy heads.


And that I agree - the ad-hominum attacks are definately present on the anti-human influence - just as they are on the pro-human side - I point you to the situations around Bjorn Lomborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg) - I would further encourage you to read the Skeptical Environmentalist - it is a good read.


I would also point out the abstract for one of the papers you sited.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6586/abs/382039a0.html


So how is it that paper defends the position that humans are 100% not influencing the climate?

My position is that the jury is still out - "It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability" by no means gives me the feeling that the authors are stating that global warming is 100% caused by humans.

[Varaj]

Originally no - the 1950/1960ss were exceptionally hostile to this viewpoint - it was not until the work done by Horner in the 1970s (whose original papers were savagely attacked) that it was even cosidered worth reviewing.

My understanding of the history of eugenics seems to be somewhat different than yours.



not so much a party line as a systematic bias more specifically that in order to be considered for grants, you have to successfully publish and to successfully publish, you need to get documents that will be successfully vetted by compatriots (who in many cases happen to be compeating for the same bucket of money) - and the best way to get documents vetted is to have them adhere to the base assumptions that peers expect.


Except as you pointed out in the warm blood dino example heated debate does occur. Outside of the media, in the scientific community, there is no heated debate on humans influencing global warming just how the details.



It wasn't until after World War II that the Eugenics debate was opened. The history of Eugenics is pretty



And that I agree - the ad-hominum attacks are definately present on the anti-human influence - just as they are on the pro-human side - I point you to the situations around Bjorn Lomborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg) - I would further encourage you to read the Skeptical Environmentalist - it is a good read.

The economist who wrote a book on Global warming and his main defense against the critics is "my book isn't science." That guy?



My position is that the jury is still out - "It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability" by no means gives me the feeling that the authors are stating that global warming is 100% caused by humans.

Your position before was that a significant percentage of scientists disagreed over the basic position that humans are influencing global warming. That position is wrong from everything I can find. Everything I have found shows that only a very small percentage take that position.
The jury isn't still out on humans are influencing it, the only question is by how much and what should be done.

[Dacke]

Frankly, if I were a genius engineer and wanted to make lots of money, I'd see if I could design a large-scale CO2 scrubber. One that could do the work of a hundred square acres of jungle, compressed into a single building. Bonus points for being totally solar powered, just like plants.

You know how much governments would pay for this thing if it meant not having to pay the cost of limiting CO2 emissions in other industries?
Likely to fail on account of the laws of thermodynamics. It's not as straight-forward as the idea I saw a while ago here (or maybe it was on CM) about having a fuel-cell-powered car using extra energy to fill up the fuel cell with hydrogen again, but still.

The energy required to "scrub" the CO2 will almost certainly be more than the energy you got from releasing it in the first place. Thus, instead of using energy to power a scrubber, it would be better to use it not to replace the coal plant releasing the CO2.

[Utrecht]

My understanding of the history of eugenics seems to be somewhat different than yours.

My comments on the 1950/1960s were related to the Dinosaurs - not eugenics - so think we have our wires crossed here.




Except as you pointed out in the warm blood dino example heated debate does occur. Outside of the media, in the scientific community, there is no heated debate on humans influencing global warming just how the details.


But it took 20+ years for the debate to get to a point where a published paper could get vetted - and even then Horner was vilified.



The economist who wrote a book on Global warming and his main defense against the critics is "my book isn't science." That guy?


No, not that guy - not sure who you are talking about


Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is a Danish author, academic, and environmentalist. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Most of his push back is based on the interpretation of data (he is a statistician focusing on envornmental issues)



Your position before was that a significant percentage of scientists disagreed over the basic position that humans are influencing global warming. That position is wrong from everything I can find. Everything I have found shows that only a very small percentage take that position.
The jury isn't still out on humans are influencing it, the only question is by how much and what should be done.

My position has never been a significant percentage of scientist disagreed (else why would we be having the peer review discussion) My position is that Global Warming as caused my humans is not a closed case as much as main stream media like to point it out.

There are vocal critics - with scientific analysis behind it - and even those who say that it is caused by humans many use such waffely language as to cover their ass (see the nature article).

Is MOST of the science saying what you are, yes - of that I wont disagree - but there are still vocal, valid critics.

[Varaj]

My comments on the 1950/1960s were related to the Dinosaurs - not eugenics - so think we have our wires crossed here.


Certainly possible.




But it took 20+ years for the debate to get to a point where a published paper could get vetted - and even then Horner was vilified.

My understanding is somewhat different on the history, we can discuss that in another thread. :)




No, not that guy - not sure who you are talking about

Most of his push back is based on the interpretation of data (he is a statistician focusing on envornmental issues)


That would be the guy.



My position has never been a significant percentage of scientist disagreed (else why would we be having the peer review discussion) My position is that Global Warming as caused my humans is not a closed case as much as main stream media like to point it out.

It is about as closed as it gets.

From what I've seen the idea that it isn't closed is supported by the media not the other way around. :lol:


There are vocal critics - with scientific analysis behind it - and even those who say that it is caused by humans many use such waffely language as to cover their ass (see the nature article).

Is MOST of the science saying what you are, yes - of that I wont disagree - but there are still vocal, valid critics.

There is a small minority of dissenters on any subject, look at the number of flat earth, no moon landing, vaccines are bad, big foot exists, etc.

[Teve]

I am sold one way or the other.I think we have an effect on the global temperature, but I don't think it's just us. I think there are some natural causes in play. But hell I remember when hairspray was the cause of the ozone crisis in the 80's... damn aquanet.

But this is an interesting article...
http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Ecosystems/Hazards/global_warming.htm

[Varaj]

I am sold one way or the other.I think we have an effect on the global temperature, but I don't think it's just us. I think there are some natural causes in play. But hell I remember when hairspray was the cause of the ozone crisis in the 80's... damn aquanet.

But this is an interesting article...
http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Ecosystems/Hazards/global_warming.htm

Very few scientists are suggesting humans are the only factor.
I think it is very likely natural cycles accelerated/aggravated by humans.

[Teve]

Very few scientists are suggesting humans are the only factor.
I think it is very likely natural cycles accelerated/aggravated by humans.

Agreed, but I wonder, if money were not an issue, how quickly if at all could we reverse or stop the effects of our behavior, and would it make a pointed change. No way to know I guess.
I guess we do what we can. Throwing money at an issue that we cannot fully understand is not usually the answer
(I'm not suggesting Varaj, that this is something you are suggesting. but many do... )

My complaint about the global warming hysteria is the lack of understanding and the throwing money at it. The more the hysteria, the more money wasted. That is why I argue against global warming until we have a better understanding... but then you could argue there is no time to wait. It's a hard question, no matter how you look at it.

[Singularity]

quote]Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."[/quote]

OK, now this is something tangible the anti-global warming people could really take and run with. This is the type of evidence that could make a lot of people come around to their way of thinking.

I'd also like to point out that I've noticed that this year has been signifficantly colder than normal, and a couple days ago FoC posted that article about how August was the first month in about a century where the sun had no detectable sunspots, and that there is a historical correlation between sunspots and cold years/mini-ice ages.

Those are the issues that the people who don't link CO2 to global warming need to address, because if there is a valid argument that all of these scientists saying that human caused global warming is real, this is likely where it's going to be at. I want to see some actual data.

[AZRogue]

quote]Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

OK, now this is something tangible the anti-global warming people could really take and run with. This is the type of evidence that could make a lot of people come around to their way of thinking.

I'd also like to point out that I've noticed that this year has been signifficantly colder than normal, and a couple days ago FoC posted that article about how August was the first month in about a century where the sun had no detectable sunspots, and that there is a historical correlation between sunspots and cold years/mini-ice ages.

Those are the issues that the people who don't link CO2 to global warming need to address, because if there is a valid argument that all of these scientists saying that human caused global warming is real, this is likely where it's going to be at. I want to see some actual data.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I would like to see a lot more about it, especially the alleged data that some other planets have warmed at the same rate as the earth, but there's not much out there. Is it because some scientists have already concluded that they know what's causing the warming so don't feel that there's a need to dig any deeper, or is it because the data has been refuted somewhere? Or maybe some other reason? Sometimes it's hard to tell. Hell, someone might be writing an important paper on it right now and we wouldn't know until it came out. If it makes the news somewhere.