What's with the animosity towards Climate Change advocates?

[Grizzly]

Not wanting to start up a flame war, just want to know why there seems to be a very high level of heat and invective directed at people who advocate or theorize that there is a degree of climate change (call it global warming) influenced by human activity.

People seem to be taking this quite personally, and I am quite surprised at the tone of the arguments. I would expect to see this type of posturing more from the GLP crew.

Can't there be a debate of ideas without turning insulting? There seems to be a lot of science on both sides of the debate. We're not talking woo-woo here, but there are woo-woos on either side.

I lurked and then joined here because of the tone of conversation and debate. This is making me regret my decision.

----
Potes currere sed te occulere non potes
You can run, but you can't hide

[Donnie B.]

Beats me, Griz. The science seems pretty solid to me.

I hope it's not a political reaction -- as in, "the Greenpeace wackos are all worked up about this, therefore it must be wrong".

I think a lot of the broader resistance to Kyoto (and other efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions) have to do with fears of economic and quality-of-life impacts. I don't get the feeling that motivates any of the GW doubters here, though.

[teddyv]

Part of the problem is the doomsayers talking about runaway change. The political and media debate about climate change is not very scientific and people are making causal connections that have not been truly established. Yes climate change is occurring, but climate change has been occurring since the earth has had a climate. As others have mentioned (particularly Glom) weather and climate is the most chaotic system we try to quantify and modelling still falls apart very quickly.

[Ut]

Yeah, this seems to be one of the more heated topics around here. Personally, I just blame Glom and his high strung temper. 'Cause it's easy, and I'm lazy

[Glom]

I've been behaving myself much better lately. Yes, earlier on I was lashing out against Greenpeace and their antihuman lies and deceit throughout the decades, but people like Swift called me on it and I've tried to leave it outside the discussion with varying degrees of success.

The problem is the media and the politicians. They paint it as a done deal. The Hockey Stick was the burning bush. Kyoto is the Ten Commandments. There is no more debate.

But we know there are so many things that are dodgy about it. The Hockey Stick has been shattered. The best correlation has been with sunspot activity. The CO2 lag has all but destroyed the connection. Then there's chaos theory, which leads me to believe that reducing greenhouse gases will not do a thing to control the climate to our liking, therefore things like Kyoto are naive, purely political, and a waste of perfectly good time and money.

Whether or not you believe that there is a strong anthropogenic influence, you cannot deny that the media and the politicians do not reflect the true state of science. It is a non stop stream of propoganda that gets us worked up. I don't know how it is in America, but no-one would dream of challenging AAGW lest they be burnt alive as a heretic and that's no joke. We don't like what AAGW has become. It has become a vehicle for political agendas and somewhere along the way, the science got left far behind.

If you could highlight some particular examples of misbehaviour (no doubt from me) then I'll either explain them or apologise for them. (I already apologised for the tsunamis thing.)

BTW, I behave even worse when it comes to nuclear power. It's just that I have virtually unanimous support on this board.

[Kebsis]

I personally am enjoying the climate change. Who are these freaks who love cold weather anyway?

[dgruss23]

Beats me, Griz. The science seems pretty solid to me.

I hope it's not a political reaction -- as in, "the Greenpeace wackos are all worked up about this, therefore it must be wrong".

I think a lot of the broader resistance to Kyoto (and other efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions) have to do with fears of economic and quality-of-life impacts. I don't get the feeling that motivates any of the GW doubters here, though.

Well, let me explain where I’m coming from since I’m one of the primary BABB antagonists in this issue. I remember reading John Gribbin’s “Hothouse Earth” around 1990. I was in college at the time and I remember hearing college professors drill GW into us and declare that the Amazon rain forest would be gone in 30 years. I was as convinced as everybody else that this was a serious issue and that if we waited to be absolutely sure GW was happening, it would be too late.

Then, about 10 years ago I was flipping through some back issues of Astronomy Magazine and found a 1990 article that discussed the Maunder Minimum and the Sun’s influence in climate change. Wow – some evidence that suggested the GW scenario might not be as simple as portrayed?! In 1996 Baliunas & Soon had an S&T article that discussed this Sun-climate connection further. The evidence was quite compelling so as I had time I began to read up on the Sun-climate connection.

During the last several years I’ve gone deeper into this by looking at the journal research. Once you get into the published research, you start finding tremendous amounts of observational evidence that contradicts the GW scenario on virtually every level. For example this article (Freitas) which overviews the wealth of research that demonstrates the serious failings of the entire GW enterprise. But this evidence rarely gets into mainstream newspaper articles for the average non-science oriented person to hear about. For the science oriented people that get better science information from magazines like Discover and Scientific American, the articles are heavily slanted toward pro-GW positions.

My point in all this is that my position on this is founded purely upon the scientific evidence. Its not anti-greenpeace or anti-environmental groups? My interest in debating the evidence is because the GW issue has become politicized. Groups want to tell us we can’t drive SUV’s because of greenhouse gas emissions. Groups want to sue the U.S. government (and Australia) – and thus the taxpayers because of greenhouse gas emissions. Groups want to have all nations sign a treaty that certainly isn’t going to benefit the economy of the U.S. as a whole or its individual citizens.

Now I might be inclined to consider those actions to be reasonable if there was strong scientific evidence to back it up – but there is not. So if I come across as anti-environmental group, what you’re really seeing is that I’m anti-environmental group actions that aren’t justified by sound scientific data and inference.

To help everybody understand where I’m coming from let me summarize what I think it takes to get from the GW hypothesis to a solid position that would justify actions:

It must be established that:

1. CO2 levels are increasing.
2. Humans are responsible for CO2 increases.
3. CO2 is an important forcer of climate changes on Earth.
4. Level of CO2 increases are significant enough to force significant climate changes.
5. The planetary climate is warming.
6. The fraction of observed warming that is from natural causes.
7. The observed warming is significantly different from previous climate swings.
8. The observed warming trends are consistent with greenhouse gas predictions and significantly greater than natural causes. In other words – solid evidence that warming has an anthropogenic cause.
9. The observed warming is having observable effects: such as sea level rising, glaciers melting or plant/animal changes.
10. The observable effects are enhanced by the human contribution to the greenhouse effect.
11. The effects are actually bad – really bad.
12. Actions proposed will help alleviate the bad effects. (Kyoto would actually accomplish something positive if embraced by everybody).

I think pretty much everybody agrees that items 1 and 2 are demonstrated. However, for items 3-11, the research in favor of the GW scenario is weak to flat out contradictory. Yet what many pro-GW groups do is point to 1 and 2, cherry pick a few selected examples that appear to support their case – often by drawing far reaching inferences well beyond what the evidence supports, talk about the computer model predictions (which are unreliable), and then demand everybody sign Kyoto.

As for item 12, the major solution the environmental groups advocate is Kyoto. It would be greatly appreciated if everybody would look at figure 26 of the Freitas article linked to above. If Kyoto was put into effect as designed then in 2050 the planetary temperature would have increased by 0.9 deg C instead of the 1.0 deg C currently projected. In other words – Kyoto will do nothing significant to slow warming.

This begs the question – Why the push for Kyoto? If these groups are so convinced GW is an impending catastrophe, then why line up behind a proposal that will do nothing to avert the catastrophe? Shouldn’t they be working their tails off to find a solution to the problem?

As to what I’ve been involved in on BABB. I’ve been trying to offer everyone an opportunity to see the evidence directly derived from scientific research. But I don’t know what to make of the response – because there isn’t very much response. Pete Tattum is the only one “voicing” ideas here that really seems undecided and willing to look at the papers I’ve cited. For those of you that seem to think the discussions become a “flame war”, you can look here and see if you feel that I “flamed” Pete for discussing this.

Since nobody else (except ToSeek) has responded to specifics in the Freitas article and attempted to offer counter arguments I don’t know what to think. How many haven’t bothered to read it because its 30 pages long? How many have read it but don’t find it convincing? If you don’t find it convincing, then why aren’t you providing counter-arguments? How many have read it and find it convincing, but don’t have anything to add to the discussion?

The people that seem to pipe in and voice agreement seem to be people that were already in agreement. Same with the people that pipe in and voice disagreement. What I’ve observed with ATM ideas in the ATM forum is that somebody posts an idea that contradicts some mainstream theory such as GR or BBT – and lots of people jump in to defend the mainstream position arguing why the alternate is wrong typically using logical argument and good references.

None of that is happening here. I don’t know why. Glom and I are putting the mainstream GW theory under serious attack. Nobody is interested in providing specific evidence to defend the theory against those attacks? If the GW evidence is so compelling and strong – it shouldn’t be that hard, right? Or are people just taking it on faith that Discover is bang on the money when they claim the evidence for GW is “overwhelming” and taking it on faith that if Discover and Scientific American insist, then there must not be any evidence out there that contradicts Global Warming Theory?

[Van Rijn]

Whether or not you believe that there is a strong anthropogenic influence, you cannot deny that the media and the politicians do not reflect the true state of science. It is a non stop stream of propoganda that gets us worked up. I don't know how it is in America, but no-one would dream of challenging AAGW lest they be burnt alive as a heretic and that's no joke. We don't like what AAGW has become. It has become a vehicle for political agendas and somewhere along the way, the science got left far behind.

Yeah, Bush got a LOT of flak when he came out with a skeptical position. Whether you like the guy or not, agree with him or not, I don't think the heat of the response was appropriate for a subject like this. And that is like most discussions I've been in on the subject: The battle lines are drawn, with most people you are either on one side or the other, skepticism not allowed. It isn't a scientific discussion.

For the record, I think there is substantial evidence for anthropogenic influence, but the subject is SO politicized, it is difficult to trust that any information source has not been ideologically tainted.

I think a lot of the broader resistance to Kyoto (and other efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions) have to do with fears of economic and quality-of-life impacts. I don't get the feeling that motivates any of the GW doubters here, though.

Kyoto has the cart in front of the horse. If you want to control the climate, then you should research and develop methods to control the climate rather than just put limits on certain gasses in the hope that will do what you want. Kyoto is far too specific, too many interest groups strongly oppose the obvious methods for achieving the gas reductions, it isn't clear what the effect would be, and yes, it could be economically devastating.

The science seems pretty solid to me.

I hope it's not a political reaction -- as in, "the Greenpeace wackos are all worked up about this, therefore it must be wrong".

I try very hard not to fall into that trap, but I'll admit it isn't easy. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I have very different views on what that means than the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. I believe that people need to be wealthy enough that they can afford to spend time and resources to protect the environment. My impression of these groups is that they just want to hold everything back.

[The Supreme Canuck]

dgruss23:

Excellent post. To answer your question (for myself, anyway), I haven't responded with any arguments either way because I am entirely unsure which side is correct. The facts are hidden behind so much political muck that I haven't been able to form a proper opinion. Truthfully, I'm hoping that I'll be able to gain some direction from this thread.

Oh, and I haven't read your linked paper yet because I'm supposed to be doing a report...

[Swift]

<big skip>
None of that is happening here. I don’t know why. Glom and I are putting the mainstream GW theory under serious attack. Nobody is interested in providing specific evidence to defend the theory against those attacks? If the GW evidence is so compelling and strong – it shouldn’t be that hard, right? Or are people just taking it on faith that Discover is bang on the money when they claim the evidence for GW is “overwhelming” and taking it on faith that if Discover and Scientific American insist, then there must not be any evidence out there that contradicts Global Warming Theory?

I'll only answer for myself. I have on occassion (less so recently) put in my two cents (probably only about half a cent actually :wink: ). As far as more... I don't feel like putting out the effort. That is absolutely not an attack on either dgruss23 or Glom, they are putting up the good fight and more power to them. I'm not the JayUtah of global warming. When the discussions start getting into the pros and cons of satellite temperature measurements for example, I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Could I learn it, could I use my brains and my scientific knowledge to argue it (or to learn that dgruss23 or Glom are right)? Sure, but it would take more time and effort than I'm willing to spend. I come to BABB for some fun and that's too much like work.

Just because I'm a cynic, just because I know a good scientist questions everything, doesn't mean I actually have to do that. If three plumbers tell me I have a plumbing problem, I sometimes just bow to their expert opinions. As I understand it, the vast majority of experts on climate think that humans are causing global warming. In this case, I'm willing to take them at their word. Could the vast majority of experts be wrong, absolutely, there are previous examples (plate tectonics for a 20th century example).

Does that mean Glom and dgruss23 have won the battle for the hearts and minds of BABBers... I'm willing to concede. Does that make me lazy... could be. I can live with both. If you want to tell Sierra Club to revoke my life membership, be my guest. :-?

[Bad jcsd]

That climtae chnage is happening, that it is the direct result of human activty and that it's results are potentially diastrous are all fairly widely accpeted within the scientific community, those who take the alternate postion tend to eschew the peer-reviewed litreture.

If you cut through the rubbish to the science you should see that global warming should be a real cause for concern to everyone.

[teddyv]

I'll only answer for myself. I have on occassion (less so recently) put in my two cents (probably only about half a cent actually :wink: ). As far as more... I don't feel like putting out the effort. That is absolutely not an attack on either dgruss23 or Glom, they are putting up the good fight and more power to them. I'm not the JayUtah of global warming. When the discussions start getting into the pros and cons of satellite temperature measurements for example, I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Could I learn it, could I use my brains and my scientific knowledge to argue it (or to learn that dgruss23 or Glom are right)? Sure, but it would take more time and effort than I'm willing to spend. I come to BABB for some fun and that's too much like work.

Just because I'm a cynic, just because I know a good scientist questions everything, doesn't mean I actually have to do that. If three plumbers tell me I have a plumbing problem, I sometimes just bow to their expert opinions. As I understand it, the vast majority of experts on climate think that humans are causing global warming. In this case, I'm willing to take them at their word. Could the vast majority of experts be wrong, absolutely, there are previous examples (plate tectonics for a 20th century example).

Does that mean Glom and dgruss23 have won the battle for the hearts and minds of BABBers... I'm willing to concede. Does that make me lazy... could be. I can live with both. If you want to tell Sierra Club to revoke my life membership, be my guest. :-?

I'm in the same league as Swift. I am a geologist and have taken a couple meteorology courses during university but I don't keep up with current research and am not that motivated, as my regular job and life preclude it. :-?

As said by many, the politicization and the fact that it seems you have to choose one side or the other (especially by the GW advocates) has really reduced the level of debate.

[Lycus]

As I understand it, the vast majority of experts on climate think that humans are causing global warming. In this case, I'm willing to take them at their word.

But what does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that the vast majority of experts think global warming will result in a catastrophic scenario that folks like dgruss and Glom argue against? That the vast majority is supportive of preventing global warming with Kyoto-like solutions? I think that a lot of people throw that phrase around without fully explaining it for the benefit of layman like myself.

[Bad jcsd]

Try this:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...cfm?pageID=520


I must admit I am no big actvist on climate change, but whatt I do dislike is when what is essientially a poltically motivated view masquerades as skepticism (for example look at soem of the arguments here, in one sentence it's said that there's no global warming, the next sentence it's already too late so we might as well not do anything!).

[Donnie B.]

Well, how about this argument: If you think GW is insignificant and/or not anthropogenic and/or within normal variation, all you have to do is nothing. If you're wrong, though, the consequences could be devastating.

However, if you take a more "conservative" approach (in one sense of the word), you accept that human activities may be altering the climate, and you take what steps you can to minimize that human impact. If you're wrong, you maybe have spent some money you didn't have to (or produced less wealth than you would have otherwise), but the climate goes back to whatever it was doing without the influence of the naked ape.

Seems to me the latter course is pretty sensible, as long as you can strike a good balance between minimizing emissions (and other potentially climate-altering activities such as deforestation) and burdening the economy.

[dgruss23]

Van Rijn: And that is like most discussions I've been in on the subject: The battle lines are drawn, with most people you are either on one side or the other, skepticism not allowed. It isn't a scientific discussion.

But it can be a scientific discussion if people are willing to discuss the details of scientific evidence. I’m providing some heavily referenced papers that discuss this issue – the Freitas article has 4 ½ pages of journal references. That’s a log of meat to chew on. But as I said before, I’m not seeing a lot of people willing to roll up their sleeves and dig into this to see if there is anything to it. Is it possible that here on a science discussion board people have drawn lines and feel no need to discuss contrary evidence?

For the record, I think there is substantial evidence for anthropogenic influence, but the subject is SO politicized, it is difficult to trust that any information source has not been ideologically tainted.

Let me use this and an example to illustrate what I mean by rolling up the sleeves. BTW – no flames here, but I’m going to disagree with your premise. The observational data is what the observational data is. And nobody has to rely entirely on trust. It’s the interpretations that can be ideologically tainted. I’ll give an example below, but anybody can look at the data and look at the opposing interpretations and decide who seems to have the stronger case.

I’m sure its no surprise to you that I don’t think there is substantial evidence in favor of GW. Let me roll up my sleeves and illustrate with the temperature record. If you look at the Freitas article I’ve linked to, the page numbered 309 (its only ~ 30 pages long) has a graph (Fig 14) of U.S. temperature record since 1880 from GISS surface data. Most researchers seem to be comfortable with that temperature data from what I’ve read.

So what does the temperature record show? Most researchers agree that the temp. data indicates about 0.6 deg C warming during the last 100 years. So far we are just talking empirical data – no disputes. But the next step is to interpret that data.

Look at figure 26 on the Freitas article. It provides the future warming prediction for the next 50 years. Notice that the model – based upon the assumption that increasing CO2 will force climate change – predicts a steady unwavering increase in temperature. Everybody is familiar with the reason- CO2 acts to trap in heat, therefore the CO2 forcing model predicts that as CO2 is increased, heat trapping is increased, and temperatures should warm. So this is the simple greenhouse model – increasing CO2 increases temperature. It can’t directly decrease temperature – only increase.

So the prediction is clear – If CO2 is a dominant forcer of climate change, and CO2 is steadily increasing, temperatures should be steadily increasing. Now if we look at the overall start to finish temperature of the last 100 years, we have a 0.6 deg C increase and it looks like our CO2 forcing model is in good shape. But when we roll up our sleeves and look closely at Figure 14, several big problems emerge. First, between 1940 and 1970 the trend was clearly cooling even as CO2 increases are really starting to accelerate. Second, the overall warmest decade was 1930-1940!

How can this be if CO2 is the dominant climate forcer? The answer is it almost certainly cannot be. This direct observational evidence contradicts the simple CO2 forcing model – unless somebody has a proposal for how CO2 can cause decreases in temperature.

Then what does the temperature record teach us? It would be wrong to conclude from this alone that there is no influence on temperatures by increasing CO2 levels. But on the other hand it is undeniable evidence that other factors besides CO2 levels affect climate fluctuations.

But now a serious doubt is raised for a CO2 forcing model. If for 30 years something else in the natural climate overwhelmed the CO2 influence, how significant is CO2 as a natural climate forcer anyway? Is there any evidence in the past climate record that can shed light on this question?

In fact there is: If you’ll read Fallacy three of the Freitas article note that research is cited which demonstrates from ice core studies that while CO2 correlates with climate changes, the increases in CO2 occur about 800 years after the increases in temperature begin! In other words CO2 levels have apparently responded to increasing temperatures in the past rather than forcing them.

This data is not in dispute. ToSeek linked to the RealClimate response which was that something else started the warming, but once CO2 levels increased, they caused additional warming. But one must ask – if CO2 is overwhelmed by other factors in the 20th century climate record, and comes in as a second string player in the longer time scale temperature records, what evidence is there that CO2 does anything significant to drive climate changes?

Now a few other things can be noted. First water vapor – which is controlled by the oceans is at least 95% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Studies pin about 3.6% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect on CO2 concentrations. Keeping in mind that human contributions are only a fraction of this 3.6%. In fact, taking all greenhouse gases, people are contributing ~ 0.3% of the total greenhouse effect and only ~0.12% of the greenhouse effect is from our CO2 emissions. See here.

So step back and ponder this. The records show CO2 is a poor forcer of climate change. We’re contributing only a tiny fraction to an effect that is easily overwhelmed by other factors. In fact the evidence I’ve pointed to at this point pushes GW advocates into the poor position of only being able to claim that CO2 might add a contribution of warming to natural warming and cooling cycles. In other words, natural warmings might be a bit warmer because of CO2 and natural coolings might not get quite as cool – because of CO2. That’s a best case scenario from the available data and it can’t even be quantified until the natural climate forcers are pinned down.

Do we have any idea what those other natural climate forcers are? It turns out the clearest signal of climate forcing comes from solar activity. This is illustrated with figure 22 of the Freitas article. Note the strong correlation between solar activity and temperature trends – including the 1940 – 1970 cooling trend. Now it’s a real tough case to make that temperatures on earth cause changes in solar activity. So the choices are to acknowledge that the records indicate the Sun is an important climate forcer – even though the full scope of that influence isn’t understood, or that the correlation is a statistical aberration.

Now if anyone wishes to adopt the aberration hypothesis, they will run into some very serious conflicts with additional empirical data. During the last 1000 years the Earth has experienced a Medieval warm period from ~900 to 100 AD, and a Little Ice age from the 1600’s to the mid 1800’s. Be-10 isotope records connect these events to changes in solar activity. But we’re not done there. More recent work connects solar activity back 200,000 years to the ice age cycles themselves. From the article:

Over the last 1 million years, the earth's climate record has revealed a 100,000-year cycle oscillating between relatively cold and warm conditions, and Sharma's data on the sun's magnetic activity corresponded to the earth's ice age history.

So to summarize: Records prior to the industrial revolution show that solar activity is linked to climate changes on Earth on time scales of hundreds of thousands to hundreds of years. The record since the industrial revolution shows a correlation between solar activity and temperatures on single decade time scales. The latter includes a cooling period that contradictions the predictions of a CO2 forcing model – which indicates solar activity is fully capable of overwhelming the CO2 influence. The former records also indicate that CO2 responds to temperature changes rather than precedes increases.

So to conclude this long, but necessarily so post, on what justification, can Discover magazine conclude that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is “overwhelming”? That’s not a rhetorical question. I’m throwing down the gauntlet for all of you quiet supporters of AAGW. And for goodness sakes please don’t expect to get flamed. Show me the evidence. Present for me the observations and logical inferences that support the AAGW claims. Where are the holes in the outline of evidence and the inferences I have discussed above? I’m patient. No need to rush forward with a response. But as a BB, can we demonstrate that it is possible to discuss the scientific evidence on this issue without standing behind lines drawn in the sand?

I maintain that the evidence discussed above presents profound contradictions to the AAGW claims about the significance of CO2 as a climate forcer. I can be compelled to think otherwise if someone can bring forward strong evidence and arguments to the contrary.

[dgruss23]

dgruss23:

Excellent post. To answer your question (for myself, anyway), I haven't responded with any arguments either way because I am entirely unsure which side is correct. The facts are hidden behind so much political muck that I haven't been able to form a proper opinion. Truthfully, I'm hoping that I'll be able to gain some direction from this thread.

Oh, and I haven't read your linked paper yet because I'm supposed to be doing a report...

Thanks TSC - and I'm willing to answer questions you have. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm offering the scientific reasons I feel the GW claims are not supported by the observations.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I appreciate that. Your previous post has some pretty compelling arguments. It's the cooling period from 1940-1970 that really gets me.

I'll hold off on forming an opinion until I gather more facts, but I'd be very interested to see how the cooling periods can be (or can't be) explained by the AAGW theory.

[dgruss23]

<big skip>
None of that is happening here. I don’t know why. Glom and I are putting the mainstream GW theory under serious attack. Nobody is interested in providing specific evidence to defend the theory against those attacks? If the GW evidence is so compelling and strong – it shouldn’t be that hard, right? Or are people just taking it on faith that Discover is bang on the money when they claim the evidence for GW is “overwhelming” and taking it on faith that if Discover and Scientific American insist, then there must not be any evidence out there that contradicts Global Warming Theory?

I'll only answer for myself. I have on occassion (less so recently) put in my two cents (probably only about half a cent actually :wink: ). As far as more... I don't feel like putting out the effort. That is absolutely not an attack on either dgruss23 or Glom, they are putting up the good fight and more power to them. I'm not the JayUtah of global warming. When the discussions start getting into the pros and cons of satellite temperature measurements for example, I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

Could I learn it, could I use my brains and my scientific knowledge to argue it (or to learn that dgruss23 or Glom are right)? Sure, but it would take more time and effort than I'm willing to spend. I come to BABB for some fun and that's too much like work.

I respect that and no doubt its probably a big part of the answer to my question. But in general - not just to you. If people are willing to spend time reading article after article in Discover, SA, books and so on in support of GW, should they be willing at some point to devote some time to a review with an alternate set of evidence and 4 1/2 pages of references. Its not as if those references are in minor journals. They're in Nature, Science, Geophysical research letters, Climate ...

Just because I'm a cynic, just because I know a good scientist questions everything, doesn't mean I actually have to do that. If three plumbers tell me I have a plumbing problem, I sometimes just bow to their expert opinions. As I understand it, the vast majority of experts on climate think that humans are causing global warming. In this case, I'm willing to take them at their word. Could the vast majority of experts be wrong, absolutely, there are previous examples (plate tectonics for a 20th century example).

I'm not sure about the vast majority .

[Bad jcsd]

I hear arguments about how data is being misinetrpreted because the bias of scientits very often from Cretainoists and antirelativists, so as soon as I hera that I become skeptical. I fail to understand why you're starting off by investigating the view that opposes the scientific consensus rather than vice versa.

Try this:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~phi...iew/node1.html

[dgruss23]

Well, how about this argument: If you think GW is insignificant and/or not anthropogenic and/or within normal variation, all you have to do is nothing. If you're wrong, though, the consequences could be devastating.

However, if you take a more "conservative" approach (in one sense of the word), you accept that human activities may be altering the climate, and you take what steps you can to minimize that human impact. If you're wrong, you maybe have spent some money you didn't have to (or produced less wealth than you would have otherwise), but the climate goes back to whatever it was doing without the influence of the naked ape.

Seems to me the latter course is pretty sensible, as long as you can strike a good balance between minimizing emissions (and other potentially climate-altering activities such as deforestation) and burdening the economy.

Two reasons I disagree - its no small cost to ask the United States to cut back CO2 production to 5% less than 1990 levels. Second, what actions are being proposed that would avert the catastrophe? I already pointed out above that Fig. 26 of Freitas shows that Kyoto would only lead to a 10% reduction in predicted heating. If 2 deg C is going to result in catastrophe, then 1.8 deg C will be harmless?

[dgruss23]

I hear arguments about how data is being misinetrpreted because the bias of scientits very often from Cretainoists and antirelativists, so as soon as I hera that I become skeptical. I fail to understand why you're starting off by investigating the view that opposes the scientific consensus rather than vice versa.

Try this:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~phi...iew/node1.html

I'm not sure where you're getting that I "started" with the view opposing the concensus. I started 15 years ago thinking the concensus was right, but as I argued above, there are clear contradictions with GW predictions. And where do you get "bias" from. I'm saying they're wrong and failing to acknowledge the contradictions. The reporting media has the bias.

As for your link, that temperature graph is consistent with the graph of US data I linked to. Note the false impression created by the 1998 El Nino - last data point on the graph. Temperatures back off after that event.

And why aren't you simply addressing the points I made instead of trying to cloud the issue with claims I'm starting with the wrong data etc?

[Bad jcsd]

What I mean to say is that i find it odd that your trying to get people to refute the altrenate view rather than trying to refute the mainstream view yourself.

The bottom part of the site adresses the link between CO2 and climate change.

[dgruss23]

What I mean to say is that i find it odd that your trying to get people to refute the altrenate view rather than trying to refute the mainstream view yourself.

That's what you mean? I offered a strong refutation above. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I make a series of referenced points about what the evidence shows. I detail the reasoning at length. And I get nothing in response. If the arguments I presented above - backed by empirical data - are not a contradiction to GW claims, then where are the weaknesses? That's what a dialogue is supposed to be. You can't refuse to address well documented contrary evidence and then claim that the mainstream position is "overwhelming". And I'm concerned that you're operating under some assumption that any contrary evidence is unreliable and biased.

I specifically focused my above post on evidence that is not disputed so that the argument boils down to who's interpretations are better supported by the evidence.

The bottom part of the site adresses the link between CO2 and climate change.

What the bottom part of the link does is make the claim that since 1970 CO2 has taken over, but as I detailed above, that's a claim with little support given the utter failing of CO2 to force climate change in the past. And where's the evidence that warming is CO2 forced as opposed to naturally forced? Note from Fig 22 of Freitas that the 1970+ increase corresponds with an upturn in the solar activity as well.

That is another problematic assumption that is made. Basically the position is that CO2 wasn't in control early on, but now its taken over and anything we observe is because of CO2. Again I ask - on what basis?

[Bad jcsd]

Well you have hardly refernced each point, you have instead posted one paper that supports your postion.

My point is that you are not examiningthe GW models in any real detail at all, you are instead presentin the contrary models and asking us to refute them.

It's not as if these arguments are unknown, for example when discussing past CO2 levels you are failing to note that these past increases were natural wheras the current ncreases are of an anthropgenic nature.

The current climate models explain the tempreature of the last century well, so your point about 1970's is immaterial as it is not a problem in theory, further the only climate models that explain the temp,. in the last century well are those that include global warming due to greenhous gases.

[Doe, John]

So . . . natural CO2 is good, manmade CO2 is bad?

[Bad jcsd]

The CO2 incerase in the past occured after warming due to astronimcal processes, the present CO2 increase co-incides with global warming. There is no asusmption that any carbon dioxide increase results in global warming.

[Meteora]

I don't have time to read this entire thread (or the linked articles), so I apologize in advance if I repeat anything or missed something important....

Back when I was in college (studying meteorology within the geography department), I took a "directed study" class (it was supposed to be climatology, but the only other student in the class dropped it before it started) that was specifically on climate change. Unfortunately, this was back in the late 1980s, so my information is, by now, quite old. I've only had a cursory interest in that subject since then, but haven't really seen anything that substantially challenges what I studied about 15 years ago.

The evidence that the earth's surface (and lower atmosphere) is warming is very strong (see, for example, this site, assuming they haven't changed their data since I last looked at it). The evidence that humans are contributing substantially to it is less strong. It is, in my opinion, not possible to clearly state whether human activity is causing any significant changes, due to the great complexity of the system involved. For example, the quantity of plants in the world alters the quantity of CO2, while animals alter the quantity of methane (a very strong greenhouse gas), and perhaps other such gases, while temperature changes, possibly partially caused by the extra gases, affect the quantity of life (due to geographical expansion of ranges, for example), which brings us full circle (and an unstable one, as I described it!) on just one part of the issue.

On the other hand, I think it's been well established that volcanic activity has a strong impact on temperatures over much of the planet. The dust cloud causes noticeable cooling at the surface for relatively long periods of time - often a year or even several years. This can sometimes explain cold periods that seem otherwise out of place.

Climate models, at least those of the late 1980s, were incapable of making forecasts of any value at all. Again, the entire system involved is too complex for them to deal with intelligently. There are heat sinks and other auto-corrections that are very difficult to parameterize in a model.

Anyway, it's late and I need to summarize. My conclusion in my report for that class was that it would be prudent for society to take reasonable steps to reduce the production of gases that are believed to be likely to result in significant climate alteration. ...And quit cutting down the rain forests.

[Glom]

However, if you take a more "conservative" approach (in one sense of the word), you accept that human activities may be altering the climate, and you take what steps you can to minimize that human impact. If you're wrong, you maybe have spent some money you didn't have to (or produced less wealth than you would have otherwise), but the climate goes back to whatever it was doing without the influence of the naked ape.

ALARM!! ALARM!! ALARM!!

That's exactly what we have the biggest problem with. The carbon-on-carbon-off fallacy. The climate is a chaotic non-linear system. There is not way to know what it will do in response to a change in CO2 emissions. There is a naive belief that the climate is benevolent and caring and that only we can make it go screwy. Perhaps non emitting carbon dioxide will make it misbehave even more! The climate will continue to do what it has done for the past four and a half billion years: anything it bloody well likes! That's why it is so futile to talk about effectively controlling it to our liking through things like UNFCCC.

As to the constant appeal to popularity, I don't want to hear it. If appeal to popularity ruled, we'd still be thinking the sun orbits us. I don't care how much you think consensus is portrayed in a clearly poorly handled media. But if you insist, I will add a few points. There is a political correctness that prevents people from speaking freely. Denying AAGW has become synonymous with being a shill for industry and not caring about the environment. Kyoto pushers are seen as noble warriors defending the planet and so anyone who questions their basis is considered to be standing against their noble quest. As a result, unless you are damn sure, you cannot deny AAGW. I've seen scientists talk about climate and while I can see they are sceptical about the doomsday scenarios put forth by Kyoto pushers, they remain charming and scientific and put forth the quite correct impression that they are being open minded and wary of the possibility, which is of course translated as support. If they strongly doubt it, they are made to look like crackpots by the alarmist media.

As I say, I refuse to accept appeal to popularity, but if I did, I wouldn't accept it from the UCS. They are know to have a tendency towards alarmism and demonstrated by their ignorant stance on nuclear power. Of course, in professional debate, we don't let that bias ourselves, so here's a look at the highlighted page.

"We see changes in climate; we believe we humans are involved; and we're projecting future climate changes much more significant over the next 100 years than the last 100 years."

This comes from the SPMs. Everyone seems to use SPMs, despite the fact that they are known to be highly biased interpretations of the real scientific assessments, understating uncertainties and caveats while heightening alarmism and doomsaying.

Nevertheless, you've got to love it. "we believe human are involved." Of course they are. Humans activity affects climate in many ways through heat emissions to gas emissions to albedo changes. But notice it says that we are "involved". That is a green light for advocates to shout "The IPCC blames climate change on us!" But in fact, all it does is state the obvious by saying we play a role. UCS are getting a bit liberal in the paraphrasing.

Then there's the bit about the next 100 years being more changeable than the last. First off, we know that even making reliable predictions 12 hours into the future is difficult. I don't know where they get off making projections for the next 100 years and calling them reliable. But what does this mean? Not much. So there will be more change. Big deal. This century has hardly been a major climate shock. So it warms by 1°. Again, ambiguous phrasing leads to liberal interpretations.

Since 1860, global average temperatures have increased by 0.6 +/- 0.2 degrees Celsius (>1 degree Fahrenheit). While the warming record shows significant spatial and temporal variability, the global upward trend is unambiguous. Most of the warming in the 20th century occurred from about 1910 to 1945 and since 1976.

This seems okay, although much debate ranges on this board as well about the "since 1976" bit. The 1910 to 1945 bit was undoubtedly the most abrupt change, which couldn't have been a result purely of carbon dioxide since most of it hadn't yet been released by us.

Twentieth century warming is likely to be the largest during any century during the past 1,000 years for the Northern hemisphere, with the 1990s the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year.

False. The Hockey Stick has been shattered. Temperatures were a bit higher during the Medieval Warm Period, which incidentally happened to coincide with a period of higher solar activity, just like now.

There has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century.

Fallacy of limited scope. They had been in retreat for one hundred years before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

The rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century was about 10 times higher than the average rate during the last 3,000 years. Global ocean heat content has also increased since the late 1950s.

And what is the variance on the sea level figure? For sure, there has been enormous variation in the rate of change of sea level. The "average rate duringthe last 3,000 years" is basically a case of taking the change in sea level and dividing it by the time. Take the average gradient between Shanghai and Stokenchurch, north-west of London and you will find what may seem to be an alarmingly higher gradient at the end when we reach Chiltern hills on which Stokenchurch is located. Clearly the gradient as we approach Harrow becomes much higher than the average gradient, but that disguises the prescence of a rather significant Himalayas mountain range in between. Reductio ad Absurdum.

Other climate variables have also markedly changed, including an increase in average precipitation (up to 1% per decade in the 20th century over the northern mid- and high latitudes), a likely increase in extreme precipitation events over the same region, and more frequent, persistent and intense warm phases of the ENSO phenomenon.

Can't see a problem here.

Since 1750, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have increased significantly. Percentage increases since 1750 are given below for the most important GHGs:


CO2 – 31%
CH4 – 151%
N2O – 17%

Maybe so.

The emission trends of most of those halocarbons controlled under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments are either declining or increasing at slower rates than in the early 1990s. However, other halocarbons that serve as substitutes for CFCs -- such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) -- are increasing rapidly, and most of them are significant greenhouse gases.

Subtle. Implication of alarmism without actually stating it, which alleviates them of responsibility.

Present concentrations of CO2 are the highest in the past 420,000 years and likely in the past 20 million years, and the rate of increase is unprecedented in the past 20,000 years.

There is some doubt about this and the preindustrial levels.

The increase is largely due to fossil fuel burning (about 75%), the remainder primarily from deforestation and other land use changes.

I have a problem here. Clearly some is due to discharge from the sea, which they say is heating.

The greatest warming effect currently stems from CO2, followed by methane, halocarbons, and nitrous oxide.

They missed out water vapour at the top. And of course that is as far as greenhouse gases are concerned.

Cooling effects stem from the depletion of stratospheric ozone and generally from relatively short-lived aerosols. Indirect radiative forcing of aerosols through their effects on the structure of clouds remains uncertain.

Very uncertain. Uncertainty also lies in the means of convective transfer.

Since the Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995, which stated that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate," significant progress has been made to reduce the uncertainty around human contribution to global warming.

That statement was an alarmist line put in at the last minute to sidestep the peer review process. Why the hell are diplomats allowed to have a say in the writing of a supposedly scientific document?

The TAR concludes, "there is now stronger evidence for human influence on global climate than at the time of the SAR" due in part to: longer data records, improved scientific understanding of natural climate variability, new estimates of climate response to natural and human forcings, new detection techniques, and more studies.

And the Hockey Stick which served as the central basis but has now been shattered.

The net radiative forcing of natural agents (variable output from the sun, amplification of solar effects, and aerosol emissions during volcanic eruptions) is small compared to anthropogenic forcings, and – over the past two, and possibly four, decades – negative (i.e., their net effect is a cooling effect).

20 to 4 years is hardly long enough to properly determine response to changes in inputs. Maunder Minimum anyone?

CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning are "virtually certain" to be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the 21st century.

Yes, because that's the way climate works. It is an incredibly complex non-linear system and yet it clearly decides that a politcally selected variable should be its main driver.

Although land and oceans currently are sinks for atmospheric CO2, their ability to take up CO2 will decrease during the 21st century.

Not in America, where the regrowth of forests in increasing the sink.

CO2 concentrations in 2100 could be between 540 and 970 parts per million (ppm), compared to 270 ppm in pre-industrial times and 367 ppm today.

Based on unrealistic emissions scenarios and a rather arrogant and pessimistic certainty of sink response.

If further destabilization of the global climate system is to be prevented, significant reductions in GHG emissions and related gases that control their atmospheric concentration are necessary.

Destabilization of the global climate system? Since when has it been stable in the first place? This is the classic fallacy that has been projected to get everyone to swallow this: the climate was a stable and benevolent thing until we screwed it up. It's never been right in the head in the first place.

Understanding of climate processes and their representation in models has improved, including on issues such as water vapor, sea ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.

Improved? Yes. Enough to make accurate predictions of apocalypse? No.

Some recent models produce reasonable climate simulations without non-physical adjustments, such as for heat and water fluxes.

They've been fudged to recreate past climate, but they remain but a hypothesis, not a theory that is validated to predict future changes.

Several models can reproduce the observed warming trend in the 20th century when forced with both natural and anthropogenic forcing.

They are a hypothesis, not a theory.

Together with other improvement, the IPCC thus concludes that despite remaining uncertainties, there is now greater confidence in model projections than before.

Greater, but they are still just hypotheses.

Without significant reductions in GHG emissions, the Earth's surface temperature is predicted to rise 2.5° to 10.4° F between 1990 and 2100; the upper end of this range is of similar magnitude to the warming the earth experienced emerging from the depth of the last ice age 20,000 years ago to the warmth of the present interglacial beginning about 10,000 years ago.

This is based on unvalidated climate models, dodgy emissions scenarios and failiure to take into account anything external like a supernova. What's more, the models that predict the most warming are ones that work least well in recreating past climate. I'd put more faith in the lower estimation models since they do a better job. But as I say, they are still hypotheses.

Global warming will mean higher maximum temperatures and more extreme heat events, higher average precipitation with more extreme precipitation events and more droughts in some areas, as well as a possible increase in tropical cyclone intensities.

False. Global warming will mean higher minimum temperatures and less severe weather events. Cyclones and the like are the result of temperature differences, which would be smaller as a result of global warming. That is what is being observed at the moment. This is the direction of the Medieval Climate Optimum. Of course, we can't be sure of any of this, because there are so many uncertainties. These predictions were made by John Houghton who didn't take into account the increase in humidity as a result of higher temperatures.

Most climate models show a weakening of the ocean thermohaline circulation, which would lead to reduced heat transfer to northern hemispheric high-latitudes and would have major implications for ocean dynamics, marine ecology, and climate variability in Europe.

They're just hypotheses. Anyway, there is not enough ice on the planet to affect ocean salinity by that much. There was at the end of the last major ice age, but not now.

Emissions of long-lived GHGs have protracted effects on atmospheric composition and the physical dynamics of the climate system.

So do a million other things.

Global mean surface temperature will continue to increase, and sea levels are projected to continue to rise for hundreds of years after GHG concentrations have been stabilized; the projected sea-level rise between 1990 and 2100 is 3.54 to 34.64 inches.

They are no doubt ignoring another Maunder Minimum. They are also ignoring a rise in evaporation.

Ice sheets will continue to melt due to climate warming, continuing sea-level rise for thousands of years.

Oh well. It's been happening for the past 400 years. What are you going to do?

[dgruss23]

Well you have hardly refernced each point, you have instead posted one paper that supports your postion.

The references for every point I've made are cited in that paper - 4 1/2 pages (hundreds of studies) - except the study about the solar-climate influence dating back 200,000 years. For that I've cited the Press release which indicates the publication source. And how many references were provided in your link?

My point is that you are not examiningthe GW models in any real detail at all, you are instead presentin the contrary models and asking us to refute them.

No detail? Gee - I'm not sure what those two long posts I made yesterday were. Your characterization of what I've done is incorrect. I specifically compared the observed temperature records against GW predictions. Then I went on and described how proxy records dating back much further compare with expectations about CO2 forcing.

It's not as if these arguments are unknown, for example when discussing past CO2 levels you are failing to note that these past increases were natural wheras the current ncreases are of an anthropgenic nature.

Really, failing to note?

dgruss23:
It must be established that:

1. CO2 levels are increasing.
2. Humans are responsible for CO2 increases.

(snip)

I think pretty much everybody agrees that items 1 and 2 are demonstrated.

That was from my first long post yesterday. I've never said or implied that CO2 increases are not caused by people. If you carefully read my points you'll see that what I'm suggesting is that CO2 is not demonstrated to be the important climate forcer everybody thinks it is. And what do I mean by climate forcer? Climate forcers are factors that can stimulate warming and cooling. Sure CO2 traps heat, but that doesn't guarantee it a climate forcer. I specifically pointed in my second long post to the details in the temperature and climate records that contradict the notion that CO2 is an important climate forcer.

The current climate models explain the tempreature of the last century well, so your point about 1970's is immaterial as it is not a problem in theory, further the only climate models that explain the temp,. in the last century well are those that include global warming due to greenhous gases.

You're wrong. Its that simple. Lets stop for a moment and look at the record again. Between 1880 and 1940 (U.S. temperature records Fig 14 from Freitas) there was significant warming of ~0.5 deg C. But during that time CO2 increases were very modest - ~ 10 or 15 ppm. Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a cooling of ~ 0.5 deg C. But during that 30 year period CO2 increased ~ 30 ppm. During the last 35 years both CO2 and temperatures have been increasing.

And you don't see this as a problem for the theory? CO2 is steadily increasing. If CO2 is the primary forcer of the climate trend since the industrial revolution, then we should see a steady increase in temperature without 30 year decreases. So lets break this down. You're saying the last 35 years of warming are anthropogenic because of CO2 increases.

Obviously the 1940-1970 cooling was not caused by increasing CO2 - since CO2 traps heat. So we must conclude that other factors overwhelmed any CO2 influence. What about the 1880-1940 warming? Should we attribute that to CO2? How can we? CO2 increases during that time were half (~15ppm) the CO2 increases during th 1940-1970 cooling. If 30 ppm increases in CO2 during 1940 to 1970 was overwhelmed by some natural cooling forcers, its a pretty weak conclusion to suggest that a 0.5 deg C warming was forced by a CO2 increase less than half that!

So I ask again, on what basis can you conclude that CO2 has demonstrated enough power as a climate forcer to be responsible for the warming since 1970?

And why do you insist on ignoring the excellent correlation between solar variation and climate changes: Fig 22 of Freitas, Little ice age and medieval maximum and the 200,000 year study I cited that linked solar activity to ice age cycles?