Climate change: a guide for the perplexed

[bascule]

New Scientist has put together a handy dandy reference guide to the most common claims being leveraged by the naysayers around here. I can't tell you how many arguments I've seen in these forums based on the same, repeated misinformation. Perhaps we can stop trying to rearticulate every single rebuttal to every bit of misinformation being circulated, and just link these clear and concise replies in the future:

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

 

I used to enjoy the global warming threads, but now they're just gotten boring and repetitive

[waitforufo]

Oh, all knowing bascule, thank you for helping us simple minded. We only regret that your enormous ego can't possibly be capture in text alone.

 

Alas, the party of Al Gore that dominates the US Senate had the temerity to create the following web page. Can you smite them?

 

 

<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=>

[Dak]

watforufo, you've already posted that link here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=338653#262

 

Theres no sense having the same conversation about the same webpage in two threads

[bluesmudge]

New scientist is a popular magazine, which to continue being popular cannot go against popular, or in this case, dominant, popular, and gospel 'truth'.

 

Something as sensitive as climate change is especially bad. Imagine the complaints if they dared to think, or suggest different. For these reasons we cannot completely trust this.

[1veedo]

Oh, all knowing bascule, thank you for helping us simple minded. We only regret that your enormous ego can't possibly be capture in text alone.

 

Alas, the party of Al Gore that dominates the US Senate had the temerity to create the following web page. Can you smite them?

 

 

<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=>

 

I wish we could give out negative reputation points.

[MolotovCocktail]

New scientist is a popular magazine, which to continue being popular cannot go against popular, or in this case, dominant, popular, and gospel 'truth'.

 

Something as sensitive as climate change is especially bad. Imagine the complaints if they dared to think, or suggest different. For these reasons we cannot completely trust this.

 

 

Just because it is a popular science magazine doesn't mean that everything they put in it is rubbish. They do have a lot of valid points and empirical data to support their claims regarding climate change in this case.

 

Popular science may not be the most reliable source, but it isn't rubbish.

[jackson33]

talk about repetition in an argument. lets not discard the hysterical claims for cause and actions, which have no more than ten arguments, which require no more than ten decisive counter thoughts. i have no idea how many places and times i have seen the same charts, the same arguments, the same referance sites, the same names or organizations all saying the same thing.

 

aside from this, just how many ways are there to say, man is not capable of being responsible for what nature does, cycles happen they have long before man existed and will probably even if one extreme takes out mankind. there are things that require what the complaints are and those things are just as much part of the total as man...

[MolotovCocktail]

aside from this, just how many ways are there to say, man is not capable of being responsible for what nature does, cycles happen they have long before man existed and will probably even if one extreme takes out mankind. there are things that require what the complaints are and those things are just as much part of the total as man...

 

They never claimed that man was responsible for what nature does, not anywhere close! They were arguing that man was responsible for the sudden increase in greenhouse gases and as a consequence led to the current increase in temperatures and climate changes.

[bluesmudge]

Popular science may not be the most reliable source, but it isn't rubbish.

 

I didn't say rubbish - I implied there is a Bias

[1veedo]

...Which is ad hominem and has nothing to do with the validity of the article in question.

[ecoli]

My biggest problem with arguments on both sides, is that they downplay inconsistencies with the data that they're trying to support, while trying to hype up the inconsistencies on the other side. It's made the whole thing very political, when it should be scientific.

 

"The question is whether this is real or just a reflection of the problems with working out the age of the trapped air and with deuterium as a temperature indicator. Many researchers are working on ways to independently date the air and the ice, and to improve temperature reconstructions based on relative deuterium content. One involves working out what is called the deuterium excess by comparing the relative amounts of deuterium and oxygen-18 in the ice." - Newscientist

 

Just for example, this article seems to be sure that the lag of temperature to CO2 data is due to explainable phenomenon or data collection error, while the nay-sayers use this lag to show that the warming must be causing CO2 to enter the atmosphere from ocean sinks.

 

This point has not been resolved, yet both sides are using it, to justify their position. How can you use incomplete data and present it to the public as a rallying cry around a cause?

 

It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

[bascule]

Oh, all knowing bascule, thank you for helping us simple minded. We only regret that your enormous ego can't possibly be capture in text alone.

 

Ad hominem

 

New scientist is a popular magazine, which to continue being popular cannot go against popular, or in this case, dominant, popular, and gospel 'truth'.

 

Genetic fallacy

 

Something as sensitive as climate change is especially bad. Imagine the complaints if they dared to think, or suggest different. For these reasons we cannot completely trust this.

 

You know, evolution was the same way a few decades ago. Now people who disagree are generally considered "crackpots"

 

So, anyone have any complaints about the material, or do we just have a barrage of against-the-source fallacies?

[bascule]

My biggest problem with arguments on both sides, is that they downplay inconsistencies with the data that they're trying to support, while trying to hype up the inconsistencies on the other side. It's made the whole thing very political, when it should be scientific.

 

The thing about climate science is that climate scientists, as a group, are able to produce a single report, peer reviewed by the naysayers, which represents the collective, defensible position which has survived the peer review process. Lindzen and Christy are able to have their say, and their peer review enters into the report.

 

While it's politicized by the left (Al Gore) and the right (pretty much everybody) the science still stands on its own.

 

Just for example, this article seems to be sure that the lag of temperature to CO2 data is due to explainable phenomenon or data collection error, while the nay-sayers use this lag to show that the warming must be causing CO2 to enter the atmosphere from ocean sinks.

 

This point has not been resolved

 

So, that's why oceanic CO₂ content is increasing, to the point of reaching the saturation limit? For example:

 

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20071805-15893-2.html

 

This is what I absolutely deplore from the global warming deniers. Two seconds of googling will answer the majority of "BUT WHAT ABOUT... ?" questions

 

No, global warming isn't due to solar forcings

No, global warming isn't due to volcanic forcings

No, global warming isn't due to oceanic CO₂ emissions (it's getting sequestered)

No climate change is not altering the Earth's precession

 

etc. etc.

 

The other side wants to turn every causal relationship established by the climate science community, through decades of intense research and scrutiny by scientists of a variety of different disciplines on its head and suggest that the EXACT OPPOSITE is true!

 

I can't imagine any other sciences dealing with this sort of bullshit. It seems like global warming deniers are willing to accept anything but the truth.

 

Hey, maybe earth is affecting the sunspot cycle! Maybe anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are actually reducing natural, dominant ones! So clearly anthropogenic CO₂ isn't the cause of global warming... it must be solar! Or some other cause. Clearly not man, there's not enough EVIDENCE! My claims don't need any evidence, they just need ANSWERS. And unless you can answer every single one of them, how can you possibly claim man is the main cause? You can't! That's not science!

 

It doesn't matter how unsubstantiated or crazy the claims are, they've got a million of them, and no matter how many you answer with clear, scientific evidence, they'll just keep asking but never accepting.

 

They're no better than creationists.

 

The other side doesn't care about the evidence, with the occasional exemptions of climate scientists who are at least aware of the evidence but continue to advance a minority opinion with no actual research or publications to back it up

 

How can you use incomplete data and present it to the public as a rallying cry around a cause?

 

It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

 

Guess what, physical scientists don't have complete data. Clearly the standard model is WRONG, or else it would be compatible with general relativity. Elementary particles must have a spatial context, or else a whole new physics is needed which is compatible with general relativity. Whatever the case, the standard model is wholly incomplete!

 

But wait! It has immense predictive power, and is based on decades upon decades of intense research. They have a model, which while it isn't reality, accurately simulates certain aspects of reality. Maybe it fails at other parts. Who cares? It's a model, and the parts of it that are testable have been demonstrated correct.

 

I hear anti-evolution people trying to write evolution off not as fact, not as theory, but "just a model". People who do such have no idea what a scientific model entails. A model, while being inaccurate in certain areas, has the ability to discern truth about others, and if we have multiple, independently developed models giving highly similar results, maybe we should start paying attention.

 

I'm really sick and tired of anti-global warming threads, just like I'm sick anti-evolution threads. I can just keep linking evidence, model output, and scientific papers, and the other side can just keep ignoring them, asking stupid questions, and linking web sites which are either not by climate scientists or by climate scientists on the fringe who can only question the scientific consensus, but are still unable to put forth their own models or alternative explanations, at least ones that can survive the peer review process.

 

This article contains a wealth of evidence and explanations, and so far all I've heard is people questioning the source of the information and the idea it's advancing, without actually looking at anything it has to say.

 

Why don't any of you put forth a specific question, look at the answers that have been provided, and discuss why those are inaccurate?

 

Instead all this thread has been is a bunch of harping on science.

 

Thus I'm forced to conclude that those who merely harp on the current scientific consensus without actually finding problems with their evidence, methodology, and conclusions are simply anti-science

 

You are all in the same group as evolution deniers and geocentrists. You can harp all you want on the prevailing scientific model because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of how things should be, but that doesn't make you any less ignorant or wrong.

 

Question the science with a scientifically defensible argument. Stop arguing conspiracies, politics, or ridiculously stupid arguments which completely contradict known scientific principles and data.

[ecoli]

But wait! It has immense predictive power, and is based on decades upon decades of intense research. They have a model, which while it isn't reality, accurately simulates certain aspects of reality. Maybe it fails at other parts. Who cares? It's a model, and the parts of it that are testable have been demonstrated correct.

 

What climate model has made accurate predictions thus far?

 

 

I'm really sick and tired of anti-global warming threads, just like I'm sick anti-evolution threads. I can just keep linking evidence, model output, and scientific papers, and the other side can just keep ignoring them, asking stupid questions, and linking web sites which are either not by climate scientists or by climate scientists on the fringe who can only question the scientific consensus, but are still unable to put forth their own models or alternative explanations, at least ones that can survive the peer review process.

Then why do you keep making global warming threads if you don't want to argue with people who disagree with you? That doesn't make very much sense, IMO.

 

This article contains a wealth of evidence and explanations, and so far all I've heard is people questioning the source of the information and the idea it's advancing, without actually looking at anything it has to say.

But, it's not like the research is complete... the article (which you posted, and the bit that I quoted) admitted as much. I don't doubt the sources of the scientists... I do question the sensationalism (by the media) behind it, which twist the words of scientists, and present possible predictions shown in complex, and possibly incomplete models, as inevitable, and frightening, truths.

 

Thus I'm forced to conclude that those who merely harp on the current scientific consensus without actually finding problems with their evidence, methodology, and conclusions are simply anti-science

Well, if you are rejecting other's conclusions, then you would think that. If other people are rejecting your conclusions, then they would think that about you.

 

You are all in the same group as evolution deniers and geocentrists. You can harp all you want on the prevailing scientific model because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of how things should be, but that doesn't make you any less ignorant or wrong.

You can't assume that any notions are preconceived. I used to accept the anthropogenic global warming model blindly until I actually started to scrutinize it more in depth. So, my preconceived notions are actually the same as yours.

I still accept this as being true, but I also must keep the possibly that non-anthropogenic sources possibly play a significant role in global warming as well. I think it would be foolish to throw out that postulate just because someone might accuse me of being antiscience.

 

Question the science with a scientifically defensible argument. Stop arguing conspiracies, politics, or ridiculously stupid arguments which completely contradict known scientific principles and data.

 

I wish politics could be separated from this debate... but if I ever start to argue conspiracy theories, you have my permission to poke me with something sharp.

[bascule]

What climate model has made accurate predictions thus far?

 

Here's some assessments of the predictive ability of GCMs:

 

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0485(1992)022%3C0951%3AHMPSIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18..597D

http://www.scidacreview.org/0701/pdf/climate.pdf

http://ams.confex.com/ams/84Annual/techprogram/paper_73749.htm

 

Then why do you keep making global warming threads if you don't want to argue with people who disagree with you? That doesn't make very much sense, IMO.

 

I'm quote content to debate current theory and evidence. So far, the only person who has ever come back with a remotely scientific counterclaim is Icemelt, regarding the issue of tropospheric heating, to which I can only reply that either current models are inaccurate or measurements of tropospheric heating are inaccurate. Otherwise, I feel I've wasted my time providing ample evidence to an unsympathetic crowd who simply disregards all evidence to the contrary of their personal opinion.

 

Why do I continue? Because I see the forums regarded with what I can only describe as anti-GW bullshit. I feel interjecting science, now and then, is helpful to the "debate"

 

But, it's not like the research is complete...

 

Nor is the standard model. After all, it can't explain gravity and is incompatible with general relativity.

 

the article (which you posted, and the bit that I quoted) admitted as much. I don't doubt the sources of the scientists... I do question the sensationalism (by the media) behind it

 

So ignore the media and focus on the science.

 

which twist the words of scientists, and present possible predictions shown in complex, and possibly incomplete models, as inevitable, and frightening, truths.

 

While media sensationalism is bad, do you disagree with the IPCC that they're over 90% certain that man is the predominant cause of global mean surface temperature increases in the latter half of the 20th century?

 

You can't assume that any notions are preconceived. I used to accept the anthropogenic global warming model blindly until I actually started to scrutinize it more in depth. So, my preconceived notions are actually the same as yours.

 

No, and this is the same argumentation pattern utilized by countless other groups advocating lies in the wake of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I used to be X but I changed my mind. Great. But that does nothing to change the underlying facts.

 

I still accept this as being true, but I also must keep the possibly that non-anthropogenic sources possibly play a significant role in global warming as well.

 

Well clearly they do. The question is which forcing is predominant.

 

I think it would be foolish to throw out that postulate just because someone might accuse me of being antiscience.

 

Great, so back up your claims with science, rather than anti-scientific speculation.

 

I wish politics could be separated from this debate... but if I ever start to argue conspiracy theories, you have my permission to poke me with something sharp.

 

Unfortunately both sides are politicizing the issue. I can't tell you what a great disservice to the debate Al Gore has done. Now global warming awareness is intrinsically linked with left-wing politics, at least in America.

 

This shouldn't be a political debate, it should be a scientific debate. Unfortunately the media (on both sides) and politicians like Al Gore are causing the exact opposite.

[bascule]

I mean, not to cast everything else aside, but here is the real issue:

 

I used to accept the anthropogenic global warming model blindly until I actually started to scrutinize it more in depth.

 

This issue has been the subject of intense scientific scrutiny for the past 40 years. Only a fringe group of scientists, who cannot put together a cohesive theory to the contrary, still resist the scientific consensus.

 

The question is, why do you see merit in an argument which the majority of scientists reject? Is it due to scientific reasons, or simple fear, uncertainty, and distrust?

 

Hasn't this same pattern persisted in science over and over, particularly in the realm of the biological sciences and argumentation against the common ancestry of all life on earth?

[jackson33]

They never claimed that man was responsible for what nature does, not anywhere close! They were arguing that man was responsible for the sudden increase in greenhouse gases and as a consequence led to the current increase in temperatures and climate changes.

 

the idea, that man creates CO2 to cause changes in weather patterns needs to explain to me, just what man did the thousands of times weather patterns have changed in the past.

 

then lets talk CO2, which seems to be the villain. an analogy to this increase is to take a tanker full of water to the shore and dumping it into the ocean, thinking it will flood the world. CO2 makes up a very tiny bit of all our atmosphere. its given 300 or 350 particles per MILLION of all that makes up the atmosphere. its degradable and easily broke down in a number of ways. that means 999,650 to 999,700 ppm are not CO2. additionally i can find you places where at a given time its much more or much less, even find a place where its steady at those figures. currently i have no doubt the east and west coast in the US, via forest fires are recording alarming increases. in nature these fires would burn themselves out, in many places they do but we now put them out.

[ecoli]

Here's some assessments of the predictive ability of GCMs:

 

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0485(1992)022%3C0951%3AHMPSIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18..597D

http://www.scidacreview.org/0701/pdf/climate.pdf

http://ams.confex.com/ams/84Annual/techprogram/paper_73749.htm

Thanks, I'll look through those.

 

Nor is the standard model. After all, it can't explain gravity and is incompatible with general relativity.

True... but not being able to explain gravity doesn't have large economic impacts. We can describe gravity and relativity using maths, and even though we can't unite them, this fact doesn't affect the average Joe or Jill. The methods by which the left wants to tackle global warming, does have this potential. Therefore, the physics debate has been largely left to scientists, where it belongs.

Therefore, the accuracy to which Global warming models are able to predict are all that more important. Exaggerated modeling, for the purposes of sensationalism are all the more likely. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, or anything, but extreme models are just more likely to be picked up by the popular press and be read about by the public. This influences public opinion -> political policy -> research funding.

 

So ignore the media and focus on the science.

I'm going to try my best, but as I described above, the research is influenced, albeit indirectly, by politics.

 

While media sensationalism is bad, do you disagree with the IPCC that they're over 90% certain that man is the predominant cause of global mean surface temperature increases in the latter half of the 20th century?

 

The fact that they have described this with such certainty does make me hesitant to believe them. I could be wrong about this (and please correct me if I am) but the IPCC report did not address the troposphere heating differences. (I'll come back to this)

 

No, and this is the same argumentation pattern utilized by countless other groups advocating lies in the wake of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I used to be X but I changed my mind. Great. But that does nothing to change the underlying facts.

I didn't mean to suggest that my opinions change the facts. I just mean that I used to have an opinion without knowing all the facts. I'm trying to prevent that from happening again.

 

Great, so back up your claims with science, rather than anti-scientific speculation.

I don't really think I've done this, but I think I know what you mean.

 

 

This shouldn't be a political debate, it should be a scientific debate. Unfortunately the media (on both sides) and politicians like Al Gore are causing the exact opposite.

 

100% agreed.

 

The question is, why do you see merit in an argument which the majority of scientists reject?

I'm not just going to believe something just because the majority does. I don't want to fall for the bandwagon fallacy.

 

Hasn't this same pattern persisted in science over and over, particularly in the realm of the biological sciences and argumentation against the common ancestry of all life on earth?

The pattern does look similar, which is why I continue to question. The thing that made me believe evolution the most is listening to the crazy creationist arguments against it. Having a presence that is trying to contradict what your research is saying only forces one to strengthen that research.

 

For example, as you said, the fact that the troposphere is not heating at the same rate as the ground is a thorn in the side of AGG-global warming proponents. You chalked it up to incomplete or inaccurate data. Also, IIRC, AGG-GW proponents also say that there are errors and scientific inconsistencies in sunspot data, which other people believe may be a significant cause of global warming. My main problem with this, is that AGG-GW proponents are ignoring one source of inconsistency, because accepting it would hurt their argument. While arguing that inconsistencies on the other side is an important reason why they are wrong.

 

My point is that there is a general hypocrisy (on both sides) of labeling data that's inconsistent with their own beliefs as insignificant. I am of the opinion that none of this data should be considered insignificant as of yet.

 

the idea, that man creates CO2 to cause changes in weather patterns needs to explain to me, just what man did the thousands of times weather patterns have changed in the past.

 

I understand why you would think that, but the overwhelming logical flaw in your arguemnt is that, just because CO2 has not been the cause of warming in the past, doesn't mean that it isn't the cause today.

 

currently i have no doubt the east and west coast in the US, via forest fires are recording alarming increases. in nature these fires would burn themselves out, in many places they do but we now put them out.

 

However, the result of these fires doesn't result in a large global CO2 increase, because the while growing, these trees took carbon out of the atmosphere. The net CO2 being released, is basically zero. However, fossil fuel burning is releasing carbon that was trapped millions of years ago, so there is a net increase in carbon, that is the result of human activity.

[MolotovCocktail]

Its more than just politics, but I also think there is lots of money involved as well. One the one hand, gas company giants would want to present data that would contradict the IPCC claims so that it can continue to keep doing what it can. Also, the media and some liberal politicians are using this as a way to horde in lots of wealth; after all this would make any journalists careers and politicians can sway the public to get their vote. This is probably why there isn't much progress into actually reducing CO2 emissions or pursuing cheaper, more efficient energy options, of which I discussed in another thread.

 

But yes, ecoli does have a point with how the data could be inconsistent on both sides. However, the one thing that is undeniable is that CO2 emissions have spiked up during the 200 years or so, especially during the 20th century. I read somewhere that the rate of CO2 emissions that occurred in the past century is the equivalent of burning all the land plants that have ever grown on Earth over the past 13000 years.

[jackson33]

one more time; CO2 concentrates in our atmosphere have not spiked or done much of anything in at least 50 million years. weather patterns on the other hand have had dramatic changes, but nothing outside of what humans could exist in.

 

lets try an extreme; nothing indicates CO2 as been below 200pmm, or above 400ppm during those 50 million years. the actual said increase is 80ppm during the past 150 years. but lets says its spiked the full 200 in the past 107 years. that an increase of 200ppm or .0002% of the total contents of the atmosphere. hardly a spike...once again this tells me mankind has has very little effect on the atmosphere since mans presence or populations are up 3 fold, as are animals and plant life. we are effecting nothing, couldn't correct it if we had and no amount of changing life style would change the outcome.

 

personally and this another again, i am not opposed to changes in efficiency, even types of energy or even encouragement of groups with this in mind. however, as long as the blame is mis-placed for the reasons well discussed and with the interest of some issue which has nothing to do with GW, then i will oppose any pro-Gore philosophy on how bad the human race and especially the American people are....

[waitforufo]

but lets says its spiked the full 200 in the past 107 years. that an increase of 200ppm or .0002% of the total contents of the atmosphere.

 

200/(1000000) = 0.0002 or 0.02%. Other than that I agree with your post.