Oh noes it's not that hot!

[TFOGGuys]

I just want to point out that this applies to both sides of the debate.

True. It may just be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster turned on his steam vaporizer to help clear his Noodly Nostrils...

[dirkterrell]

I just want to point out that this applies to both sides of the debate.

But the gist of the political side of the argument is "should we do anything about it?" One side says the warming is caused by humans and we should undertake actions with enormous economic effects to reverse it. The other says that there is no observational evidence, only models (and flawed ones as the paper under discussion shows), to support the claims that the warming is primarily human caused and therefore these economic actions are questionable. The observations of today's temperature conditions are not all all out of the ordinary compared to those of times in the past, so Occam's Razor leads us to the conclusion that what is happening is natural.

I have always asked people who support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to show me observations that show that humans are clearly the cause of warming. In a discussion that erupted here a couple of years ago (and unfortunately got taken out in the server crash), I was told that the Vostok ice cores were such a data set. So, I looked at them and found nothing of the sort. The claim was that the rate at which the Earth is currently warming is abnormal. Here is what you find when you test that hypothesis:



Those are "instantaneous" warming rates and show no such abnormality. Then it was claimed that it was necessary to look at warming rates over a longer period like a century, so I did that:



Again, nothing unusual about the current state of affairs. We know that the Earth was significantly warmer in the past, well before the arrival of large-scale anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The simplest assumption at this point is that the current warming is natural.

[Zanatos]

Hurray! Since Global Warming is fake, now I can pollute and waste as much as I want. No more recycling or energy conservation for me! To Hell with the environment! Woo hoo!

[Vellos]

Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas, it's not hard for basic science to test which elements absorb infrared light. It's also a naturally emitted gas and in the past when global temperatures were high so were the levels of carbon dioxide. So yes the planet's temperatures do naturally fluctuate, but the global warming concept is that if we add unnatural means of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then we are the ones changing the atmosphere at a rapid rate. Among many other agenda-based problems, I think the most concerning is that most animal species can only adapt to 2ºC changes per year, and if we were to cause the average temperatures to raise more than that per year we could suffer the repercussions of mass extinctions in the animal kingdom.

As far as the China coal power plants "not causing global warming" theory - that one is pretty easy to answer. Burning coal emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Burning sulfur, an agent inside coal, produces a global coolant. Sulfur in the atmosphere is also a serious toxin, causing effects such as acid rain and other environmental damages. Back in the 20th century the United States stopped using high sulfur coal (2.5% - 4% content) because of its pollution, and out of that came the study of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. China, being China, uses high sulfur coal because it's cheaper and thus emits pollution along with the global coolant.

[Ghost]

The problem is more along the lines of Pascal's Wager than Occam's Razor since we have incomplete data. I can't set up a nice 4-square on here, but the gist is the following points of the Square:

1-Do Nothing, Nothing Happens, No Problem
2-Do Nothing, Anthropogenic Warming Happens, Problems Occur
3-Do Something, Nothing Happens, Money Spent
4-Do Something, Prevent Anthropogenic Warming, Money Well Spent

Of these four choices, #1 is what everyone's hoping for, but that's the bad risk if it turns out that anthropogenic warming is true.

Spending money now to possibly/potentially reduce an impact isn't a negative. Even if it doesn't affect warming, it's reducing pollution which surely isn't a bad thing based on air quality and acid rain and ground water contamination reasons alone. Even if they don't contribute to anthropogenic warming, pollutants are pollutants, and reducing them is a good end in itself.

As to the costs incurred, you pay for insurance in the hopes of never needing it, paying for reductive measures is along the same lines. Maybe they'll never be needed, but if they are, it's better to have paid the costs when you could instead of bearing the full price of failing to act later.

Also, don't forget that every polluting industry that has to pay to offset or reduce their emissions is paying someone else--it's not like it's "lost" money as it goes either to the companies making scrubbers or alternative energy solutions, etc.

So, it may cost GM or Coal Company X money to reduce their emissions, but that money goes back into the economy somehow. Corporations don't want to spend money that could reduce their profits by any margin, so they will play up the "dire consequences" of forcing them to be cleaner, but it's not necessarily true. And, even if it does affect their bottom line, they're the polluters, they're responsible for their cleanup.

[dirkterrell]

Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas, it's not hard for basic science to test which elements absorb infrared light.

Correct.

It's also a naturally emitted gas and in the past when global temperatures were high so were the levels of carbon dioxide.

Also correct. Is one the result of the other? Were CO2 levels high because of the high temperature? Were temperatures high because of CO2? Were their increases due to some other factor and thus unrelated to one another? This is where "basic science" starts getting complex and chaotic. (And I use "chaotic" in the sense of sensitivity to initial conditions in non-linear systems, e.g. a global climate system.) There are many parameters in global climate models and we don't understand them all very well, especially how they feed back on each other. Chaotic systems can often times produce results that seem nonsensical at first.

So yes the planet's temperatures do naturally fluctuate, but the global warming concept is that if we add unnatural means of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then we are the ones changing the atmosphere at a rapid rate.

Changing in terms of what, CO2? No argument there. Global mean temperature? I have seen no unambiguous observational evidence of that. I welcome your providing such evidence.

Among many other agenda-based problems, I think the most concerning is that most animal species can only adapt to 2ºC changes per year, and if we were to cause the average temperatures to raise more than that per year we could suffer the repercussions of mass extinctions in the animal kingdom.

A gloal temperature change of 2C per year? That would be a phenomenal and unprecedented change. Where are you getting that number from?

[dirkterrell]

3-Do Something, Nothing Happens, Money Spent
...
Spending money now to possibly/potentially reduce an impact isn't a negative.

When you're talking about half a trillion dollars a year in increased taxes (source) just in the US, it certainly is. When you have no guarantee that other nations on the rise economically whose populations dwarf ours will play along, it certainly is. Energy is the fundamental thing that drives quality of life.

Spending money to ensure against potential hazards always involves a risk-benefit analysis. We are not at this point able to truly do that. That is why research needs to continue and it needs to be done honestly and driven by the scientific process, not hysteria whipped up by politicians who excel at that kind of bullshit.

[Vellos]

Sorry I stated that wrong, should have re-checked the articles. If average global temperatures were to rise 2ºC from the pre-industrial average it would be too much for many animal species to adapt to in such a short time. 1 out of 10 species could go extinct, and possibly more from the repercussions in the food chain. You can find many articles on this topic and choose your preferred sources.

There are visible signs of global warming. Severe weather is pretty obvious. Doesn't matter on the season either, and yes naysayers - climate change can make it snow harder. Remember NYC just last year? Also since the 1970s tropical storms have been increasing in severity and duration. Even the flooding in the East this year and last are caused by greater warm updrafts. If you want a larger and full explanation of this I can do so, sources are NOAA.

[dirkterrell]

Sorry I stated that wrong, should have re-checked the articles. If average global temperatures were to rise 2ºC from the pre-industrial average it would be too much for many animal species to adapt to in such a short time. 1 out of 10 species could go extinct, and possibly more from the repercussions in the food chain. You can find many articles on this topic and choose your preferred sources.

I can't address the claim if you don't provide your sources.

There are visible signs of global warming. Severe weather is pretty obvious. Doesn't matter on the season either, and yes naysayers - climate change can make it snow harder.

Well, even if that is true, it says nothing about whether the changes are anthropogenic.

Remember NYC just last year? Also since the 1970s tropical storms have been increasing in severity and duration.

How is the "severity" of a hurricane measured in these data? According to a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters:

Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

[TFOGGuys]

Unless is is backed up by repeatable, verifiable data, supposition and hypotheses concerning the anthropogenic origins of climate change are OPINION, not science. As Dirk mentioned, the sheer volume of data and the complexities of the climatic system make singling out a given factor all but impossible, to wit:


The influence of the current upwards trend in the number of pirates off of the Somali coast has yet to be determined....

[derekm]

So does this mean its going to rain this weekend?

its raining men over here!

[Vellos]

I can't address the claim if you don't provide your sources.

Here you go.

And Jim. It's called correlation, not opinion.

You guys have fun with this thread, I'm out.

[dirkterrell]

Here you go.

And Jim. It's called correlation, not opinion.

You guys have fun with this thread, I'm out.

Lame, but predictable.

[GaribaldiCU]

And Jim. It's called correlation, not opinion.

Something drilled into me by many of my best teachers/professors over the years: correlation does not equal causation. Just sayin.

[dm_gsxr]

[dirkterrell]

Also correct. Is one the result of the other? Were CO2 levels high because of the high temperature? Were temperatures high because of CO2? Were their increases due to some other factor and thus unrelated to one another? This is where "basic science" starts getting complex and chaotic. (And I use "chaotic" in the sense of sensitivity to initial conditions in non-linear systems, e.g. a global climate system.) There are many parameters in global climate models and we don't understand them all very well, especially how they feed back on each other. Chaotic systems can often times produce results that seem nonsensical at first.

Some recent activity relevant to this thread:

Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...-gas-emissions

[j0ker]

James Taylor is a known science and environment troll for big business. Take a look at his "alarmist" wording in every article he's ever written.

Paycheck by Opec, Koch and Cargill

Global climate change is very real.

[Ghosty]

Good discussion and valid points from both sides in this thread I think. I stay out of it because whatever every intelligent person writes sounds correct, hahaa. I'm happy to see FINALLY that at least the anti-warming side has accepted that it exists, and that the argument is now only centered on "why" (human-caused or natural cycle). Too bad it had to take melted glaciers to prove that point.

Personally I like one of Ghost's points that doing nothing is a dangerous bullshit copout. I understand that China and India aren't pulling their fair share, but that doesn't mean they aren't adding to it. Just because it's "not fair" that the U.S. should shell out money to lower emissions, doesn't mean pollution magically disappears. That's terrible logic.

And I also agree this author is a crony for big polluters. I can't say which is "more correct", no one can, but if given only two choices, every time, I'd take the side of climate-change scientists over the big-polluter corporate bankrolled people. In the last decade+ I've heard more compelling arguments from the global-warming side, than I have from the other side that only wants to PROTECT POLLUTERS. That's just me, so of course for now, I'll lean more towards human cause.

People like to think that humans as a species can't have effect on such a huge scale. Hopefully no one here is that daft and ignorant. Just look at the miles-wide whirpools of plastic trash in various oceans. Look at what we did to our ozone layer in the 80's, and ALSO how we pretty much FIXED it. Yep, humans can actually do shit (bad or good) on a global scale. We've already proven it.

[dirkterrell]

Global climate change is very real.

Sure, it's been happening pretty much since the Earth formed. The question is what the cause(s) is(are), and whether humanity is a large enough source of that change to warrant a huge restructuring of our economies around it. The fact that the dire predictions made in the IPCC reports based on climate models have not matched the observations does not bode well for the proponents of such models.

And, being a scientist, I would prefer to discuss the article and the merits of the details therein rather than dismiss them because they come from a certain source.

[dirkterrell]

And I also agree this author is a crony for big polluters. I can't say which is "more correct", no one can, but if given only two choices, every time, I'd take the side of climate-change scientists over the big-polluter corporate bankrolled people.

Note that he is referencing the work of climate scientists and presenting the arguments of both sides.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I f'n love this thread.

[bulldog]

Can they freakin bring back REAL asthma inhalers then...and not these lame no CFC inhalers to save the ozone!!!!

[madvlad]

Well we are raping mother earth and abusing it, wasting resources and turning everything green into pavement cause business is more important than survival but hey who's counting lol...

[tecknojoe]

As long as I can still race a motorcycle, fuck the earth