I just watched An Inconvenient Truth

[bascule]

I agree that politics should be totally excluded from this issue, but when we have governments with hidden agendas, sponsoring organizations to pump out misleading information about CO2 being the ultimate cause of global warming, it becomes almost impossible !

 

In the case of science their arguments take place within the context of peer reviewed scientific papers and journals.

 

A think tank's web page provides no mechanism for feedback. It's a completely one-sided view, and as they control it, they're free to put up whatever they want with absolutely no checks on its correctness.

 

If you personally had to stake your life on the infallibility of the evidence put forward for greenhouse gases being the primary cause of the current global warming, would you ?

 

Uhh, no. But that's a whopper of a red herring.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule said :

 

In the case of science their arguments take place within the context of peer reviewed scientific papers and journals.

 

In the context of this discussion, that is somewhat incorrect. Participants in this thread are quoting almost anything except peer reviewed scientific papers. For example; anything from realclimate.org does not fit that criterion. If we restricted ourselves to peer reviewed papers, most people would withdraw from discussion, since that adds enormously to the research work required for the discussion.

[foodchain]

Bascule said :

 

In the case of science their arguments take place within the context of peer reviewed scientific papers and journals.

 

In the context of this discussion, that is somewhat incorrect. Participants in this thread are quoting almost anything except peer reviewed scientific papers. For example; anything from realclimate.org does not fit that criterion. If we restricted ourselves to peer reviewed papers, most people would withdraw from discussion, since that adds enormously to the research work required for the discussion.

 

Not really. I know personally I have posted various links of data with the idea that such was not only conducted by numerous scientists, but scientists from all around the world. Its not only this but what about noaa for instance? The reality is not much of any of the substantiated works that I have posted links to about global warming receive really little to no attention in the regards of rebuttals in a like form, such as a scientific peer reviewed document that would falsify such works...

 

I am really working on not going into the rhetoric angle this debate can bring on, thus why I truly just point to such being real, as in global warming or global climate being impacted by our behavior from such a broad spectrum of bodies, from an education institution, to the latest IPCC reports, to the EPA, noaa, and even independent bodies such as realclimate.com.

 

For the record, heartland.com for instance not only is a right wing think tank, which is ideologically opposed to anything that deals with global warming, and in American such groups typically not only shun it but our current president is actually in hot water over the fact various memos have surfaced and other paperwork that shows government scientists being asked to not only avoid the use of such terms but reports being doctored. Its actually been made illegal in many regards to talk about polar bears if you work in some fields in the government, because there habitat, or the destruction of is something applicable to global warming.

 

The list of respectable scientific bodies, both government and non government based, separated by not only being independent but in different places in the world that generate reports via sound scientific practice is rather large and growing, small scale alarmism is not an adequate term for it, rather such is misdirection overall, such as saying realclimate.com accounts for all the data presented so far in the debate, which is simply not true in any regard.

 

So what are you really saying overall? I mean the links as you would have it are not scientific, so I guess the computer simulations are not either, or really none of it is, would that also include anything you present as evidence, or is this yet again another misdirection in the false guise of skepticism, is it a debate or who is better or posses more guile with words anymore. I mean I could say the IPCC report is nothing but a fallacy produced by people that have no idea what they are doing, but that’s not very positive to the debate now.

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain.

 

I was simply responding to Bascule's statement. To imply that only peer reviewed papers are scientific is, in a sense, true. However, this thread does not work to those rules. I have quoted lots of references which are not peer reviewed, such as New Scientist articles; and others have quoted such things as realclimate, which are also not peer reviewed. There are plenty of sources which are not peer reviewed, but nevertheless reputable.

 

I am also a bit dubious about the use of mud slinging as a debate technique. To refute another person's references on the grounds that they come from a disreputable source is a questionable tactic. If you take this approach, you better be really sure of your facts, because you risk being seen as a dirty, shit throwing debater, who is not worthy of respect.

[foodchain]

To foodchain.

 

I was simply responding to Bascule's statement. To imply that only peer reviewed papers are scientific is, in a sense, true. However, this thread does not work to those rules. I have quoted lots of references which are not peer reviewed, such as New Scientist articles; and others have quoted such things as realclimate, which are also not peer reviewed. There are plenty of sources which are not peer reviewed, but nevertheless reputable.

 

I am also a bit dubious about the use of mud slinging as a debate technique. To refute another person's references on the grounds that they come from a disreputable source is a questionable tactic. If you take this approach, you better be really sure of your facts, because you risk being seen as a dirty, shit throwing debater, who is not worthy of respect.

 

Respect:confused: is this planet of the apes or a debate on global warming. You just reiterated your idea that peer reviewed papers or studies are not being used in the debate, how should I react to that statement really? Do you offer any advice, or simply are you getting frustrated?

 

I laid out a point about my sources, how would I endanger myself, did I say I only use strict science papers at any point in any of my responses? Heck, I even use journalistic views and reports;)

 

I mean your point if valid would imply then a two way street in regards to both sides of this coin. To say a report like the IPCC is not sound or peer reviewed, well, I don’t know how to respond to it, there is probably more review to that in terms of simply grammar alone then most anything else I have looked at as a counter argument, or any real scientific counter argument really. Then again following your logic or stance on it, such would make any reports by say the EPA, or NOAA non scientific also, or for that matter much anything I have posted or will post I guess.

 

Here, I would like for you to read the following and tell me what you think.

 

"One of the basic foundations of modern science, whether it be medicine, physics or climatology, is "peer review." Peer review means new scientific discoveries, ideas, and implications are not accepted or considered valid until they have been scrutinized, critiqued, and favorably reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same area or scientific field.

 

The peer-review process commonly takes place as a prerequisite to the publication of a scientific paper. When scientists wish to publish papers on their scientific discoveries, the journal to which the paper is submitted usually will ask two or more other scientists in the same or a similar field (i.e., scientific peers) to review the paper.These reviewers will rigorously evaluate the work to make sure that the results are well supported by the data. If the paper passes the review and is accepted for publication, we can assume that the science is well-founded and valid. Sometimes the paper does not pass the review and is not published, but more often, the reviewers ask questions that the authors of the manuscript have to address satisfactorily before their paper is published.

 

Not all published scientific work is peer-reviewed. When a scientist or informed non-scientist wishes to evaluate new or controversial scientific papers, one of the first things they usually ask is if the paper was published in a journal that requires critical peer-reviews. Journals such as "Science" and "Nature" are among the most highly regarded journals in terms of the peer-review process. Articles and opinions published in newspapers or popular-press magazines (for example, "Time" and "Newsweek") are not peer-reviewed, and thus must be considered with caution if they are not based on a peer-reviewed scientific papers. Moreover, some "scientific" books and journals do not involve rigorous peer-reviews, readers must be careful not to put much scientific faith in what is presented in these books or journals.

 

The peer-review process sets a scientific standard; we know that peer-reviewed scientific work has been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts in the appropriate field and has been judged valid. All of the scientific journal results reported in this www site, "A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming," have undergone this level of scientific peer-review."

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html

 

"Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries

Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."

 

In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

 

"Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

 

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years."

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

 

Make sure to read the links, for they directly apply to the issue at hand.

[Dak]

If you have total faith in these calculations, then that becomes convincing. However, as Dr. Richard Lindzen points out, we do not even have enough understanding of cloud formation, and the effects of increasing water vapour, to accurately model these and their effects on climate.

 

yes, and there are a few other unnacounted factors. iirc, the problem with the clouds is that clouds act as a blanket, keeping heat in and contributing to warming. climate changes could make significantly more or less clouds, which could, then, have a knock-on effect of increasing the temperature more or less than we assumed. it is unknown what effect clouds will have.

 

there are also some theories on climate 'buffers', which could be acting to mask/counter-balance the effects of global warming, complete with the alarming possibility of becoming 'over-loaded', and thus instigating a period of even faster than expected warming (these account for some of the higher predictions of increases in the vasinity of 8C)

 

all of this makes predictions of the amount of climate change that will occour somewhat unreliable. however, a few things are pretty certain:

 

global warming is occouring.

it is being driven mainly by anthropogenic GHG

it will continue to get hotter

the amount by which it will get hotter will be enough to cause certain things that will 'suck'.

 

so, argumentation about specifics aside, we can all agree that global warming is going to cause a crap amount of warming. how crap, or wether crap amount = 2C or 10C, is not entirely certain, but that it will be crap is pretty well established.

 

hence, with reguards to your earlyer comment about 'global warming alarmists'... if i say "OMFG OMFG MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE **** **** **** AAAAARG", then you wouldn't fobb me off as a 'my house is on fire alarmist'. you would, instead, probably accept that my house was on fire, and agree that i was justified in being alarmed.

 

similarly, 'global warming alarmists' are just people that accept the science, and are justifyably alarmed, not people to be mistrusted 'because they're panicing'.

 

----------------

 

one thing i'd like to point out is that none of us have brought up anything that the climate scientists are unlikely to have thought of, and climate scientists are a lot more capable of making judjments reguarding global warming than we are. so, yeah, if you disagree with the consensus oppinion, you're almost certainly just plain wrong. simple as that. same as if you come out with 'hey, guys, evolution must be wrong because of blah', where 'blah' is, in all likelyhood, something that evolutionists are aware of, and yet still accept evolution.

[SkepticLance]

Dak said :

 

none of us have brought up anything that the climate scientists are unlikely to have thought of, and climate scientists are a lot more capable of making judjments reguarding global warming than we are. so, yeah, if you disagree with the consensus oppinion, you're almost certainly just plain wrong.

 

The problem with this logic is that the consensus is more apparent than real. There are plenty of climate scientists who dispute the details of the current paradigm. I agree with you that the world is warming and that AGGs are probably a major cause. However, when you start getting beyond that, things become less certain, and there is a hell of a lot of disagreement among climate scientists.

[bascule]

In the context of this discussion, that is somewhat incorrect. Participants in this thread are quoting almost anything except peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

The dominant paradigm being advanced comes from the IPCC's assessment report, which is the foremost scientific paper on the issue.

 

According to the IPCC:

 

1) The global mean surface temperature is rising

2) The primary radiative forcing has been CO₂ for the past 50 years

3) Anthropogenic CO₂ sources substantially outnumber natural ones (by an order of magnitude)

 

The problem with this logic is that the consensus is more apparent than real. There are plenty of climate scientists who dispute the details of the current paradigm.

 

In which case I simply ask that those who criticise the present theory as advanced by the IPCC cite either:

 

1) IPCC peer reviewers or

2) A peer-reviewed scientific paper which contradicts the IPCC's assessment reports

 

If you're going to contradict the leading scientific authority on the matter, you can do better than some think tank's web site

[SkepticLance]

Bascule said :

 

If you're going to contradict the leading scientific authority on the matter, you can do better than some think tank's web site

 

The credibility of various references will obviously vary. I cannot comment on the think tank mentioned, since I do not know the individuals concerned. They might, from my viewpoint, be very good or very bad. I simply do not know, and I suspect that neither do most of those on this thread who criticise them.

 

However, a great many sceptics are credible climate scientists. Dr. Richard Lindzen, for example, works with the IPCC, even though he often disagrees with their conclusions. In fact, a number of reports have come out since the latest IPCC report which indicate that the contributors to that report were not all in agreement, and the final draft was a compromise. Even that compromise was not agreeable to all the scientists involved.

[Icemelt]

The biggest problem we have to contend with now is political pressure, and not global warming. The IPCC is an international body subsidised by governments and is politically influenced. Scientists may do their best to produce accurate open minded research results, but in the complex field of climate change much of this can be ambiguous, with conclusions often based on approximations and inappropriate assumptions leading to wild consideration of every possible scenario.

 

Professor Philip Stott Dept of Biogeography University of London

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

 

The pressures now imposed upon scientists to produce evidence substantiating the desired conclusions are now enormous, since to contradict the political direction may jeopardise careers and limit future research opportunities. Some leading university professors have been threatened with losing their research budgets, and some have even received regular death threats. The whole concept of coercing scientists by predefining research results, objectives and conclusions is totally unscientific and compromises validity.

 

Environmentalists will frequently latch onto worst case scenarios, extrapolating these to predict disaster, and alarming the population. The standard approach is to insist on immediate action, and to demand that funds are allocated to prevent the imminent catastrophe forecast. Generation of fear amongst the public is an essential element required to enable pressure groups to influence the politicians.

 

Eventually the politicians are obliged to join in, since an election is always around the corner and the caring party with alarmist concern is likely to catch more votes than the party which takes a more moderate line. Inevitably the costs start to be weighed off against each other, it becomes a bet with the standard risk reward scenario. Should we invest in the precautionary approach, since the pressure groups might be right, or should we invest in adapting to cope with the changes forecast if they materialise ? Doing nothing becomes no longer an option, and the politicians must now decide how to spend our money.

 

Science eventually becomes of little importance, since the problem is now the public perception that a hypothesis based on conjecture has taken on the mantle of an inevitable truth. Any dissenters are branded as heretics, and the concept of questioning the conclusions of the all powerful government sponsored committee is in itself unthinkable.

 

Professor Richard Lindzen IPCC & M.I.T. summed this up very nicely when he said “People have decided you have to convince other people that, since no scientist disagrees, you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

 

And Professor John Christy Dept of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama & Lead Author IPCC also commented “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true”

 

So sinister has this become that it was recently reported that Lord Lawson (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983/89) accused the Royal Society of preventing the funding of scientists who do not share its alarmist view.

 

Whilst few of us would deny that we are entering a period of climate change, demonstrated by a current period of global warming, it is important that we keep this in perspective and that we do not allow ourselves to be panicked into hysteria by extremists. We have a situation where scientist are producing results which require careful interpretation, yet politicians like Al Gore are making show on stage and have the temerity to reach scientific conclusions ! One would think it very unlikely that we would accept the conclusions reached by a politician on something as complex as climate change, when our top scientists have been wrestling with the problem for decades. And yet - - - !

 

So what has happened to our reasoning ?

 

We have Al Gore, and I’ve so far been unable to establish his scientific qualifications enabling him to comment on this matter, projecting wall to wall graphs and explaining correlations between temperature and CO2 levels convincingly. And with a smile and a joke he manages to get the ice core analysis completely back to front whilst laying the entire blame for global warming on humanity.

 

Then we have Professor Patrick Michaels Dept of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia saying “Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers”.

 

And we have Professor Tim Ball Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg commenting “If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite, so the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong”.

 

Plus we have Professor Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa saying “You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past”

 

There is clearly disagreement here, and perhaps we should leave the scientists alone to reach their conclusions without outside influence from pressure groups, politicians and hysterical extremists. At this stage it is far from conclusive that human contribution to atmospheric levels of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming, yet we have already built up a multi billion dollar industry on this premise. Until we are sure that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor in global warming, surely this money would be better spent on developing the third world. It was recently pointed out that, given sufficient investment, Bangaladesh could be just as well equipped to deal with higher sea levels as Holland is now.

 

It is perhaps worth noting that in the past 4,000 years the sea level rose by 90 centimetres.

In the previous 4,000 years the sea level rose by 14 metres.

And in the 4,000 years prior to that, the sea level rose by 50 metres.

The pitiful few centimetres forecast for this century by the alarmists are inevitable, with or without CO2 fluctuations, we have been amazingly lucky that the rise in sea level has already slowed by 98%

 

I feel confident that I’m not alone in worrying whether the government’s endorsement of the alarmist view on global warming could be a very expensive mistake, not for them, but for us !

[Dak]

The problem with this logic is that the consensus is more apparent than real. There are plenty of climate scientists who dispute the details of the current paradigm. I agree with you that the world is warming and that AGGs are probably a major cause. However, when you start getting beyond that, things become less certain, and there is a hell of a lot of disagreement among climate scientists.

 

yes, there is a lot of disagrement about the magnitude of warming that we can expect. i'm not, for example, trying to argue that in 50 years time the temperature will have gone up 3.5C.

 

however, i'm pretty sure that you won't find any model that predicts anything better than, say, a 1C rise in temperature if we don't cut back on GHGs.

 

eg, from wiki's IPCC report article, it seems that the lowest model examined by them predicts a rise of 1.8C (within 100 years, afaict).

 

so, can we say we currently have consensus that global warming is going to occour to a degree where bad things will happen?

 

or do you disagree that the world will neccesarily rise in temperature enough to cause bad things to happen?

[bascule]

Professor Philip Stott Dept of Biogeography University of London

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

 

It's all fine and dandy to say that, but ultimately meaningless. The science either stands on its own or it doesn't.

 

We have Al Gore

 

I still haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, and don't really want to. It seems to me that regardless of its accuracy, it's a dogmatic advocation for policy change, and Gore's previous attempt at that, Kyoto, is in my opinion a pointless waste of money and not the right way to approach solving the problem.

 

Gore seeks to boost himself back into the public spotlight and in doing so has increasingly polarized an already polarizing issue.

 

However, regardless, none of that has anything to do with science!

[thechronic]

I found a good link for some of you global warming nuts (I noticed there were quite a bit out there).

 

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

 

And let's not refer to the IPCC report as valid data. A politically charged report with a mere 1600 scientists saying humans are causing global warming. I bet you guys haven't heard of the petition with 17,000 signatures saying global warming is not caused by global warming.

 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

 

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Numbers don't mean everything.

[SkepticLance]

Dak said :

 

so, can we say we currently have consensus that global warming is going to occour to a degree where bad things will happen?

 

I think we all agree that the world is in a warming phase. There is disagreement on the balance of causes, and on what can be predicted.

 

Any change brings bad things. Usually also good things, so your statement about bad things happening really does not mean much.

 

I see global warming as a mix of good and bad. The bad comes mainly from speed, in that animals and ourselves are short on adaptation time.

 

The good is substantial. We will have a North West passage each summer. Much more cropland becomes available with melting of permafrost and retreat of snow and ice. High CO2 levels means plants grow faster, and become more drought resistant. Currently temperate climates will become sub tropical with the massive increase in agricultural productivity warmth brings.

 

Arctic species will adapt or suffer. Tropical species will have massively expanded range. Tropical rainforest will spread to areas further from the equator. Some areas will become more arid. Other areas will become wetter.

 

Sea levels will rise, but only about 300mm plus or minues 200 by the year 2100.

[foodchain]

Dak said :

 

so, can we say we currently have consensus that global warming is going to occour to a degree where bad things will happen?

 

I think we all agree that the world is in a warming phase. There is disagreement on the balance of causes, and on what can be predicted.

 

Any change brings bad things. Usually also good things, so your statement about bad things happening really does not mean much.

 

I see global warming as a mix of good and bad. The bad comes mainly from speed, in that animals and ourselves are short on adaptation time.

 

The good is substantial. We will have a North West passage each summer. Much more cropland becomes available with melting of permafrost and retreat of snow and ice. High CO2 levels means plants grow faster, and become more drought resistant. Currently temperate climates will become sub tropical with the massive increase in agricultural productivity warmth brings.

 

Arctic species will adapt or suffer. Tropical species will have massively expanded range. Tropical rainforest will spread to areas further from the equator. Some areas will become more arid. Other areas will become wetter.

 

Sea levels will rise, but only about 300mm plus or minues 200 by the year 2100.

 

From what or where do you get that? The amount of extinction alone that global warming would truly bring theoretically speaking or standing at this point alone should be enough to want to stop it. I mean the play these specials on national geographic of all things, its in any real mainstream science magazine, its pretty common anymore that global warming truly only equates to a bad thing for life in general.

 

one last thing, do you think that our activity which is being processed by science as having an impact on global climate at some point is just going to stop, I can only wonder the concentration of CO2 alone will be by 2100 giving the current rates of production alone, if those are not going to change drastically themselves.

 

As for positions people might hold, I was just at a website that had 2000 signatures of scientific professionals that do not agree with global warming, and I read a lot of rhetoric as to why, but I could not find one single scientific study to support why. Survival being what it is I don’t find this shocking at all, but in that regard its survival overall that’s an issue with global warming. What if in say fifty years the weather changes in some parts of Africa so bad that they can lose food production rates by 50%, who is going to fit that bill or care at that point?

 

Yes, global warming might not be sound to various world economies at this point but such does not have to be the case, we can switch to a portfolio of energy systems alone, the limits are only based but our motivation to get there really. The greatest part of it all is the reality of global warming understood, or even ecology for that matter would basically prop up the ability to actually save ecosystems and habitat our of necessity which should actually be able to conserve most of the living organisms that inhabit such, or conserve biomass in general, from a scientifically valid position, something that has been needed for a rather long time actually.

 

The last hurdle is people are not going to stop breeding anytime soon, so consumption is only going to increase and increase, by 2100 the levels of human population alone might be something the planet as a total ecology might not be able to support, let alone everything else living.

 

So overall, its a gross mess, most of the politics of the issue typically are surrounding the so called skeptics of the issue anymore, such is even more evident in America were it took so long for our president to finally be able to come out and say its real and people are having an impact via behavior, though such was something of a victory, I just really have no idea what its really won.

[Dak]

Dak said :

 

so, can we say we currently have consensus that global warming is going to occour to a degree where bad things will happen?

 

I think we all agree that the world is in a warming phase. There is disagreement on the balance of causes, and on what can be predicted.

 

tho there seems to be no disagreement that antrhopogenic forses are a predominant driving forse.

 

Any change brings bad things. Usually also good things, so your statement about bad things happening really does not mean much.

 

I see global warming as a mix of good and bad. The bad comes mainly from speed, in that animals and ourselves are short on adaptation time.

 

The good is substantial. We will have a North West passage each summer. Much more cropland becomes available with melting of permafrost and retreat of snow and ice. High CO2 levels means plants grow faster, and become more drought resistant. Currently temperate climates will become sub tropical with the massive increase in agricultural productivity warmth brings.

 

Arctic species will adapt or suffer. Tropical species will have massively expanded range. Tropical rainforest will spread to areas further from the equator. Some areas will become more arid. Other areas will become wetter.

 

Sea levels will rise, but only about 300mm plus or minues 200 by the year 2100.

 

umm, can you support that?

 

I know science doesn't make any ethical claims, so science per se cannot state that global warming will 'be bad', but i'm not aware of any predictions that allow for the situation to be such that any sane metric could judge it as anything other than 'overall bad'...

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain, re extinctions.

 

I had this argument with another person, a rabid greenie.

That character told me that global warming was driving numerous species to extinction; so I responded with a challenge. "Tell me just one species that has been made extinct by global warming."

 

The answer, after a long delay, was the Harlequin Frog. A little google searching tells you that this is a south American tropical frog that is apparently extinct due to infection by African chytrid fungi. There is no evidence at all that global warming is involved. The problem was the introduction of an alien disease.

 

This leads to my next point. There is no doubt that extinctions are running at an incredible rate. However, the causes are human hunting/fishing, and mostly the introduction of alien predators, diseases etc. Rats have wiped out more species than human hunting. There is little evidence that global warming is actually leading to extinctions. It may happen in the future, but no doubt to a minor degree.

 

Re population growth. This is slowing. According to the United Nations, it will plateau at about 9 billion and then start falling.

 

From Dak

 

can you support that?

 

You need to be more specific. I made a number of statements. Which ones do you feel are dubious?

[Dak]

it seems that you're claiming that global warming will/might be a balanced mix of good and bad.

 

do you have any studies/models/predictions etc that project environmental changes that will/might be a balanced mix of good and bad (or is that not what you meant)?

[mpano]

There's no question that the world is experiencing a slight increase in temperature. However, there is considerable question as to the validity of the conclusion its the result of increases in atmospheric polution.

 

All available evidence points to the existence of a warm period between 800 and 1100 years ago, with temperatures as high as 4 degrees C higher than we're experiencing now...followed and preceded by lower temperature periods. We've some records of this warming trend from documents surviving from this time period...but the best support I've seen came from combinations of data (tree rings around the globe, coral stria, etc).

 

Check the research by Kuo-Yen Wei, University of Taiwan. Here's an overview I googled: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LjjuDRoWgOAJ:corelab.iag.ntou.edu.tw/2006/Publication%2520(1996-2001)/Wei/%E9%AD%8F%E5%9C%8B%E5%BD%A5MD972143-WPES.pdf+Documenting+Past+Environmental+Changes+in+Taiwan+and+Adjacent+Areas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. The summary:

 

"The interlaminated dark and light colored lake sediments obtained from several mountain lakes appear to reflect large-scale wet and dry cycles over the past 2400 years (Chen et al., 1993; Lou et al, in press). The detected 450-years periodicity is similar to that of the solar oscillation. The Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) were recognized (Lou et al., in press). These two epochs were also identified from palynological records from the Central Range (Liew et al., 1995)"

 

They also referred to studies of annual to seasonal records from tree-rings.

 

"Studies of tree rings of Taiwan fir allowed to reconstruct past summer and winter temperatures of the alpine mountain area during the past 300 years. It is demonstrated that cold climate prevailed during the Little Ice Age (Tsou and Liu, 1995)."

 

Finally in a synopsis of the various proxies studied in and around Taiwan:

 

"During the past 2000 years, the climate has become warmer and wetter, intervened with the conspicuous Medieval Warm Period (1000-1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD). Tree-ring data confirmed also the effect of the Little Ice Age in alpine Taiwan mountains. Fluctuation of humidity over the past 2,400 years as derived from lake sediments suggests that the recognized dry/cold periods coincide with major historical commotion events in Chinese history."

 

From a variety of proxy indicators, the same events are found even here, on the western rim of the Pacific Ocean.

 

The Taiwan researchers even linked major "commotion events" in mainland China with these climatic events. According to Hong et al. (Hong Y. et al., "Response of Climate to Solar Forcing Recorded in a 6000-year delta18O Time-Series of Chinese Peat Cellulose", The Holocene, 2000) these events were also climate driven. Their study of oxygen isotopes in a peat bog in north-eastern China close to the border with North Korea, revealed a 6,000 year temperature history which was compared with carbon 14 solar proxies to match the temperature history with solar change.

 

They estimated the temperature between 1100 and 1200 AD at around 2°F warmer than today, matching the Medieval Warm Period, confirmed by the existence at that time of plant remains from species that normally exist only in southern China. They found very cold temperatures between around 1550 and 1750, matching the Little Ice Age found elsewhere.

 

Finally, they also found the solar connection in these climate changes, the carbon 14 solar proxy correlating with the oxygen 18 temperature proxy. In other words, the sun caused climate changes in China.

 

Also check Winter and company's research in the Carribean: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000GeoRL..27.3365W. The summary:

 

Measurements of oxygen isotopes in coral skeletons from Puerto Rico by Winter ("Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three Degrees Cooler than Present During the Little Ice Age", Geophysical Research Letters, Oct 15 2000), compared modern isotope ratios with those of the distant past. Calibration of the coral isotopes to provide a sea surface temperature proxy was based on modern sea surface temperature records around Puerto Rico for the period 1983-1989. This provided the baseline for the researchers to test the coral for temperatures during known cold phases of the Little Ice Age, 1700-1710, 1780-1785, and 1810-1815. They found that during the Little Ice Age, sea surface temperature in the Caribbean was 2 - 3°C cooler than it is today, a truly massive reduction in temperature which could by no stretch of the imagination be local.

 

And finally Keigwin and company's work in the Sargasso: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/274/5292/1503, and http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=3842. And the summary:

 

In the Sargasso Sea (an area popularly known as the `Bermuda Triangle'), radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sea bed sediments by L. Keigwin ("The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, 1996)demonstrates that sea surface temperatures were around 2°F cooler than today around 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age), and around 2°F warmer than today 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). In addition, the data also demonstrates that the period before 500 BC (referred to as the Holocene Climatic Optimum) saw temperatures up to 4°F warmer, and without any greenhouse gas component to cause it.

 

And my take.....warming is real, without doubt, but its minor and in no way to a degree that indicates a man made influence (0.6 C in the last century, and 2/3 of that increase before FDR took office). Yes, glacial ice is melting, but it refreezes elsewhere, and it always does this. Cap melt is nothing new.

 

However, oil is a limited resource, and will expire in the blink of an eye (within the next century by some estimates). Coal is much the same. In addition breathing brown air....well, sucks.

 

We need to stop wasting billions on warming research, which is what many of these "scientists" seem to want us to continue funding. If they are right, we know the cause: burning fossil fuel. Whether this is right or wrong, funding alternative fuels MUST be our primary thrust. We need to stop spending more on global warming research than we spend on alternative fuel research. Fund hyrdogen. Fund geothermal power. This will resolve any potential problem with man made pollutants causing warming, and will definitely get us off consuming petroleum.

 

Thanks for the time.

[bascule]

And let's not refer to the IPCC report as valid data.

 

Why?

 

A politically charged report with a mere 1600 scientists

 

Politically charged as it may be, it was peer reviewed by 2500+ additional scientists, many of which are IPCC critics

 

saying humans are causing global warming. I bet you guys haven't heard of the petition with 17,000 signatures saying global warming is not caused by global warming.

 

You're comparing a petition to a scientific research paper assembled by thousands of scientists in over 130 countries? *boggle*

 

That's even worse than icemelt linking to a think tank's web site

[Icemelt]

There's no question that the world is experiencing a slight increase in temperature. However, there is considerable question as to the validity of the conclusion its the result of increases in atmospheric polution.

 

Nice post mpano

I agree with all that, in particluar the part below, although I think it's the politicians who have taken over the impetus, since this is an excellent way to justify the extortion of further taxes based on the green cause.

 

We need to stop wasting billions on warming research, which is what many of these "scientists" seem to want us to continue funding. If they are right, we know the cause: burning fossil fuel. Whether this is right or wrong, funding alternative fuels MUST be our primary thrust. We need to stop spending more on global warming research than we spend on alternative fuel research. Fund hyrdogen. Fund geothermal power. This will resolve any potential problem with man made pollutants causing warming, and will definitely get us off consuming petroleum.

 

But I would add part of my previous post to that

 

Given sufficient investment, Bangaladesh could be just as well equipped to deal with higher sea levels as Holland is now.

[Icemelt]

That's even worse than icemelt linking to a think tank's web site

Oh, so you're back to shouting down the opposition again are you !

This attitude loses you all credibility bascule

You may not like the source of some of the information, but that doesn't necessarily make it incorrect, and it certainly doesn't justify you trashing the individuals contributing to the argument.

I suggest you back off, wind up your tolerance level, and become a little more receptive

This thread isn't just about imposing your thoughts on everyone else, it's supposed to be an open minded debate

Try reading this whilst you calm down, then maybe trash the BBC too !

 

With global warming taking centre stage in the climate change debate, the idea that Earth might be heading towards an ice age seems outdated. Yet scientists studying microfossils from deep-sea cores have discovered that we may still have much to learn about the cycles of ice advance and retreat that have affected Earth for a million years.

Periods of ice advance are known as glacials, while the warm periods are known as interglacials. In the past, it was thought all interglacial periods lasted for around 11,000 years, in line with Earth's natural orbital cycle around the Sun, but new findings show events on the planet's surface may also influence the timing of ice advances and retreats. It is important that we understand these natural climatic rhythms as our current interglacial has lasted 11,500 years and could potentially end at any time.

Although the current human-induced high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere are thought to be unprecedented in the recent geological record, some scientists argue that it's possible the changes we are making by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ultimately help usher in the next ice age. "There are operations within the climate system that we still don't fully understand," explains Professor Chronis Tzedakis, from Leeds University, UK. "It's possible that our pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could somehow lubricate the flipping from one state to another."

Professor Tzedakis and colleagues studied tree pollen and tiny fossilised marine creatures called foraminifera from a sediment core taken close to the Tagus river estuary off the coast of Portugal. Sea water contains two major isotopes, or types, of oxygen, O16 and O18. The O16 isotope is lighter and evaporates more readily than the heavier type. When this happens during an ice age, O16 ends up being locked away in ice on land and the remaining seawater becomes enriched with the heavier O18 isotope. Fluctuations show up in the chemical composition of foraminifera, which means they can be used to deduce the amount of ice volume that was around at the time they were alive. Meanwhile, preserved pollen discharged into the sea by rivers reflects the extent of forest cover, which is known to increase and decrease with warming and cooling. Extracting both sets of data from a single core provides scientists with a picture of changes occurring both on land and the sea.

In the 1990s, researchers had investigated the interglacial prior to the one we are in now, which began 132,000 years ago. So Professor Tzedakis' team opted to look farther back in time to the interglacials that started 240,000 and 340,000 years ago respectively. They expected to see a similar pattern to the last interglacial findings, which had revealed the warm period lasted 16,000 years and that there was a 5,000-year time lag between the ice retreating and the appearance of forests, and again between the ice advancing and the trees disappearing. However, the new findings showed up a completely different cycle of events.

"Much to our surprise we found that pattern was not replicated," said Professor Tzedakis. "We didn't have a big lag between the onset of the interglacial and establishment of trees plus there wasn't the persistence of forests into the period of ice growth." Of particular interest was the pollen data from the interglacial beginning 240,000 years ago as this showed the opposite sequence of events. Here, the forests seem to have disappeared after 6,000 years of warmth, despite there being no detectable change in the amount of ice cover. The decline mirrored reductions in atmospheric methane observed in ice cores from Antarctica, suggesting it was a global rather than local event that prompted their demise. Following the disappearance of the trees, the ice sheets then gradually advanced.

The scientists believe this shows that different mechanisms operating within Earth's climate system can impinge on the underlying orbital controls of glacial-interglacial cycles. In the case of the trees disappearing from Portugal before the advance in ice they believe an unknown global event, which may have also caused lower atmospheric methane levels, prompted them to die back. If vast areas of heat-absorbing forests in Siberia were also affected and replaced by tundra, this would have increased the solar energy reflected back into the atmosphere, in turn cooling the planet's surface temperature and encouraging ice growth.

It is this unusual turn of events which has got the scientists thinking that our impact on global climate could yet prompt the return of another ice age, despite the fact that global temperatures are currently increasing. They now plan to extend their research to look back at one more interglacial, which began 400,000 years ago. This has the best potential to shed light on future climate change as the natural geometry of the Earth's orbit was the same at that time as it is today.

"It's a fascinating period," says Professor Tzedakis. "It appears to have been quite warm and wet and to have lasted a long time; possibly 30,000 years. Within the context of our present study it will be important to see how the forest reacted within the ice-free period." Although today's unnaturally CO2-rich atmosphere is not replicated in climatic records of the recent past, the information gleaned from cores provides a means for scientists to test the accuracy of models designed to predict future climate changes.

At the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, scientists are finding that land cover has an important role in influencing climate. "We're increasingly finding that we have to include the effects of changes in land cover in our models," said carbon cycle research scientist Chris Jones. "Both man-made and natural changes in forest cover have a significant effect on climate, so being able to understand how changes in cover worked in ancient climates is extremely useful."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm

[Icemelt]

The latest IPCC Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report released today 6th April 2007 “Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” (Available on my website http://www.icemelt.info/IPCCWGIIAR4SPM6APR07.pdf) doesn’t seem to have given us very much more information to assess. Unfortunately the contents primarily relate to predictions based on the February 2007 report and current global warming trends. Rather worryingly though, the report now appears to take for granted that global warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

“The Working Group I Fourth Assessment concluded that most of the observed increase in the globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

 

I found a couple of points of concern as follows:

 

“A subset of about 29,000 data series was selected from about 80,000 data series from 577 studies. These met the following criteria: (1) Ending in 1990 or later; (2) spanning a period of at least 20 years; and (3) showing a significant change in either direction, as assessed in individual studies.”

 

So the IPCC conclusions appear to be based on only about a third of the data series submitted. One can’t help wondering what the conclusions might have been if the other two thirds had been included !

 

Perhaps on other interesting matter also emerges. The chart in this Apr 2007 report, showing surface temperature, indicates little or no change in surface temperature in the tropics, yet this is precisely the area in which the February 2007 report, from which this data was taken, showed remarkable and inexplicable discrepancies. When reporting on the expected faster warming of the troposphere than that at the surface, which is crucial to the greenhouse gas blame argument, it stated "Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N) Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior.” I’m still trying to get my head around this one, as the two reports appear to disagree, but perhaps they just included the minority of results in their 29,000 out of 80,000 data series assessments. I find this all very unscientific and it stinks of only using the data that agrees with the popular hypothesis.

 

If the IPCC don’t publish the full results of their findings, how are we supposed to believe that the published conclusions are not being manipulated by this “Intergovernmental Panel” with a vested interest in perpetuating further investment in their research. These doubts should not be discarded as implausible, since we have only recently seen a significant number of eminent scientists and IPCC authors distancing themselves from the published findings of the third assessment report.

[1veedo]

Over the past 30 years, the world has been warming at about 0.16 Celsius per decade. Based on that, I can make pretty damn good predictions myself.

The least you could do is keep your facts strait. The Earth has been warming at .2C (up to .22C depending on the study) per decade for around 30 years. This is significant because the rate that the Earth is warming has been increasing. Between 1900 and 2000, we had warming of only .06~.08C per decade, much smaller then the latest trends.

 

I believe I've told you all of this before.

 

Sources (all peer-review btw):

1. IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

2. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute. (2005). GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, 2005: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

3. Jones and Moberg, 2003 data set. Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. (ground temperatures)

4. Cristy and others. (2006). Error estimates of version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures. (satellite)

In the context of this discussion, that is somewhat incorrect. Participants in this thread are quoting almost anything except peer reviewed scientific papers. For example; anything from realclimate.org does not fit that criterion. If we restricted ourselves to peer reviewed papers, most people would withdraw from discussion, since that adds enormously to the research work required for the discussion.

Hey, I use mostly peer-review references in my posts. I have used a lot of references outside of the scientific academy, but even here most of these sources were just summarizing other references that were published in peer-review.

 

I think it's funny that you say this because the scientific community unequivocally agrees that humans have been causing global warming. So if we only use peer-review, then your position is completely thrown out of the window, SkepticLance. If I were you, I'd embrace non-scientific sources.

 

Also of relevance is the fact that good sites, like realclimate, cite peer-review. So although a reference may not be published itself, if it references published scientific articles, then it is a good reference as well.

And let's not refer to the IPCC report as valid data. A politically charged report with a mere 1600 scientists saying humans are causing global warming. I bet you guys haven't heard of the petition with 17' date='000 signatures saying global warming is not caused by global warming.

 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

 

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm[/quote']This is actually a hoax, not that it really matters though.

 

"In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

 

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

 

The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

 

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.".

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

 

Btw icement, your post about CO2 causing an ice age isn't a theory exactly that CO2 cools the Earth or anything. The theory basically says that warming could cause another ice age by disrupting ocean currents or something. This is what The Day After Tomorrow movie was based on. So it's not like these scientists are arguing against the consensus that CO2 causes warming (they actually accept this in order to support the theory), they're arguing that global warming, which is caused by CO2, could rapidly throw us into another ice age. But I don't think this position is well-accepted.

So the IPCC conclusions appear to be based on only about a third of the data series submitted. One can’t help wondering what the conclusions might have been if the other two thirds had been included !

This is uninformed' date=' I can see very easily why they use this criteria (well I don't understand the third, but the other two make perfect sense. I havn't read it yet, either.).

 

Many studies are now outdated by more recent information. Most of climate science is relatively new and most of the body of knowledge about it has been published after 2000. But more to the point, stopping at 1990 shows an incompletely picture. This is obvious. Anything less then 20 years is relatively useless as well because it just shows one little tree in the forest. Most trends under 30 years, even, deal more with weather then they do with climate.

If the IPCC don’t publish the full results of their findings, how are we supposed to believe that the published conclusions are not being manipulated by this “Intergovernmental Panel” with a vested interest in perpetuating further investment in their research. These doubts should not be discarded as implausible, since we have only recently seen a significant number of eminent scientists and IPCC authors distancing themselves from the published findings of the third assessment report.

Reference?

 

We know that the published conclusions weren't manipulated by the "intergovernmental panel" simply because these conclusions are supported by every other scientific institution on the planet. I never understood why people seem to think there's some sort of illuminati conspiracy because the magnitude of information control across the entire scientific community would be far too hard to contain. Covering up things in government, even, seems to be rather hard, but keeping thousands upon thousands of scientists hushed up seems, to me anyway, close to impossible. You just make yourself sound less credible by tooting about conspiracies and such.