Why do you doubt global warming?

[iNow]

Okay, then man. Good to see you, too. I did not address the specifics. My bad. However, the comparison between your petition and what Answers in Genesis did is entirely relevant. Take care. I'll leave you to it.

[swansont]

If you can't stay remotely on topic then please do not post. Go hijack some other thread.

 

You brought up the petition, and specifically asked what was to be made of it.

[ParanoiA]

You brought up the petition, and specifically asked what was to be made of it.

 

Yes, the GW petition that I linked. Not irrelevant, non-associated creationist drivel. That's utterly absurd.

 

Not to mention it's politicizing a scientific discussion. I thought we didn't like it when people conflated the GW scientific debate with politics and media spin. So why on earth would you support such a thing?

 

You guys know me, I'm not here to ridicule science with some secret denier agenda - I'm locked into debate with skeptics that like to cling to articles they find with text they want to hear and pretend as if it's a valid reason to counter consensus.

 

Both of these things were brought up to me, and I do find them of interest, and I am trying to query scientific minds as to their peer reviewed status. I'm trying to stick to the method and avoid the politics. A clinical, scientific refute is what I'm looking for. If you don't know, that's fine, I understand. I'm just hoping that someone here does.

[bascule]

What is to be made of the 31,478 signers of this petition?

 

It is not very compelling when you consider that no scientific body of national or international standing expresses a dissenting opinion. However, in support of the IPCC's position you have an extensive number of organizations:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations

[swansont]

Yes, the GW petition that I linked. Not irrelevant, non-associated creationist drivel. That's utterly absurd.

 

Not to mention it's politicizing a scientific discussion. I thought we didn't like it when people conflated the GW scientific debate with politics and media spin. So why on earth would you support such a thing?

 

 

You asked for opinions about the petition. It's not as if it were brought up by someone else as a distraction from other discussion.

[RyanJ]

As far as I can see the evidence speaks for it's self just nicely. So I don't doubt it.

[foodchain]

Here's one that apparently has been submitted for peer review.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

 

I asked in another GW thread about Lindzen and Choi's paper submitted for peer review earlier this year and have seen no responses on it.

 

I also searched the site here for discussions on Lindzen's ERBE data conclusions as well as this Petition Project and found nothing. I don't know if I'm not searching correctly, or if no one is refuting their claims or simply ignoring them altogether.

 

My logic has always been that consensus is right more than it is wrong and that it is irrational to pick and choose when to reject scientific consensus unless you're an expert in that field. All us laymen can do is read articles by smart people and attempt to educate ourselves, but at the end of the day, we are not experts and any ole smart person can refute the claims of another and we wouldn't know which is correct. So, nodding to consensus is the only logical choice.

 

But this is only taking me so far. Several folks keep throwing up the issue about consensus itself. A weak consensus is not the same as a major one. There does appear to be a smaller consensus than on other empirically based theories, such as evolution and gravity.

 

So I come here to ask. What is to be made of the 31,478 signers of this petition?

 

 

 

 

More importantly, what is the peer review conclusion on these papers? I'm talking about both Lindzen and Choi's radiation conclusions as well as this one posted on Petition Project by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

 

Probably because its biased I would say. They ignore a lot of stuff about GW you can find in other reports and I would even dare to say show a good degree of bias while doing it.

 

You really could say so much about stuff, like the acidification of the oceans, to what about the constant increase of CO2. I mean the count itself in terms of PPM is increasing like it has not for a rather long period of time even in geological terms. This has no other condition to produce it except for human behavior. It would also be worth noting from what I know that around the thousand PPM marker geological speaking you can find transitions from a greenhouse to an ice house type of global environment, and that regardless CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So what about it having a feedback with incrasing atmopheric H2O, is that question even addressed. In short a lot of things scientifically that relate to GW are simply ignored in that "paper", and furthmore that narrow view applied to me almost reeks of some kind of censorship scientifically giving all the data to date.

 

They plop some graphs up and say everything is the same and CO2 is having no effect but making plants grow better, its simply not true in any regard, nor is that physically possible in the first place. It actually sounded quite dumb to me to be honest.

 

Where is the data showing empirically that its the sun, and why giving the heavy debate has this not ended the debate if it were true, as it could be simply shown with the science. It should be 1,2,3 easy if that paper were true.

 

I also for the life of me still have a hard time wrapping my head around the debate.

 

CO2=greenhouse gas, no debate

 

CO2 Levels=Constant PPM increase since industrial revolution, no debate.

 

The atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO2, and incidentally the planet is around two times as hot as mercury at about twice the distance from the sun, with mercury being the closest planet to the sun, and the next or third rock being Earth, which distance wise is much closer in temperature to Mars then Venus is to Earth. If anything all the proves is CO2 is again a greenhouse gas.

[Moontanman]

My problem with global warming is the idea so so human orientated. Every thing seems to center around keeping the planet just like it is or was or should be or some other rather arbitrary idea.

 

The Earth changes, are we at least one of the engines of the current change? Almost certainly. Could there be other factors involved? Almost certainly. Will the Earth and it's ecology survive global warming? Almost certainly. Would it be better for the Earth to change slower? Almost certainly.

 

If the evidence we have is any indication much of the history of complex life on Earth has been on a much warmer earth than we see now. Will humans get the shitty end of the stick from climate change? Almost certainly. We will have to adapt, maybe actually do some things different, make choices that are less than self centered, or maybe even make choices that even more self centered.

 

One thing is sure, change is coming, at this point who done it, isn't as important as how do we make sure humanity survives, grows, and learns from what is happening.

[RyanJ]

The Earth changes, are we at least one of the engines of the current change? Almost certainly. Could there be other factors involved? Almost certainly. Will the Earth and it's ecology survive global warming? Almost certainly. Would it be better for the Earth to change slower? Almost certainly.

 

You base the last statement on a LOT of assumptions. Nobody really knows the true implications of global warming. If we do not know that how do you know that things will be better? What makes you think you know so much about something we barely understand?

 

As it stands we may not be able to stop global warming but we should try because there is no information about how the world will end up as a result because of it. For example, a run-away greenhouse effect could lead the Earth to end up like Venus.

[foodchain]

My problem with global warming is the idea so so human orientated. Every thing seems to center around keeping the planet just like it is or was or should be or some other rather arbitrary idea.

 

The Earth changes, are we at least one of the engines of the current change? Almost certainly. Could there be other factors involved? Almost certainly. Will the Earth and it's ecology survive global warming? Almost certainly. Would it be better for the Earth to change slower? Almost certainly.

 

If the evidence we have is any indication much of the history of complex life on Earth has been on a much warmer earth than we see now. Will humans get the shitty end of the stick from climate change? Almost certainly. We will have to adapt, maybe actually do some things different, make choices that are less than self centered, or maybe even make choices that even more self centered.

 

One thing is sure, change is coming, at this point who done it, isn't as important as how do we make sure humanity survives, grows, and learns from what is happening.

 

If that is even possible. What if food systems begin to collapse in a few hundred years from it. Sure you will be dead, but would you in the now what to be responsible for all of that death, human and otherwise?

 

Rapid environmental change is never really a good thing for life. Sure some stuff may live, and undoubtedly will, but what, and how will that look. With all of the risk, why risk it? I don't want acid oceans anymore then I want plastic oceans. I want our biosphere to be stable, not static. I don't want poisonous foods, poisoned air and water.

 

While this goes away directly from GW, the point about GW is that the impact will be negative to the current global theme anyway you look at it. You will have massive extinctions coupled with all kinds of other change such as invasive species, invasive everything because the global environment again will be changed by GW. Can anyone really speculate what will happen when all the ice melts? That is serious dramatic change in a relatively short period of time.

 

IF you increase CO2 you increase all of its effects. The more or you do this the more change you cause, its really quite simple. I could easily see America if not the industrial world being able to change to something else easily within twenty years if it was truly desired. Point of fact though is its not. That change could easily stave off so much.

[Moontanman]

You base the last statement on a LOT of assumptions. Nobody really knows the true implications of global warming. If we do not know that how do you know that things will be better? What makes you think you know so much about something we barely understand?

 

I never said things will be better, all we can know is they will be different. Just because the changes might be bad for humans doesn't mean the earth is going to die or that the ecology cannot adapt. I think the data shows we know a lot more than you seem to understand.

 

As it stands we may not be able to stop global warming but we should try because there is no information about how the world will end up as a result because of it. For example, a run-away greenhouse effect could lead the Earth to end up like Venus.

 

Again I never said we shouldn't try to slow down out own climate inputs, I think it is just as disingenuous to say the Earth will end up like Venus as it is to say global warming is false. I've seen no studies what so ever that suggest the Earth becoming like Venus due to human inputs.

[RyanJ]

I never said things will be better, all we can know is they will be different. Just because the changes might be bad for humans doesn't mean the earth is going to die or that the ecology cannot adapt. I think the data shows we know a lot more than you seem to understand.

 

And you cannot say that it will not be just as bad for the environment can you? You can assume that it won't be but that would be the same as assuming that we will or will not survive. There is no definitive answer one way or another. It could be worse, good enough reason to do something about it.

 

Again I never said we shouldn't try to slow down out own climate inputs, I think it is just as disingenuous to say the Earth will end up like Venus as it is to say global warming is false. I've seen no studies what so ever that suggest the Earth becoming like Venus due to human inputs.

 

Too my knowledge nobody has ever said that it would. The fact that it's a possibility if frightening enough for most people to take notice. And I on the other hand have read studies that say it is a possibility. Research runaway greenhouse effect.

[Moontanman]

If that is even possible. What if food systems begin to collapse in a few hundred years from it. Sure you will be dead, but would you in the now what to be responsible for all of that death, human and otherwise?

 

I don't understand why you are asking me this, I never said I wasn't willing to help or currently not doing any thing to help.

 

Rapid environmental change is never really a good thing for life. Sure some stuff may live, and undoubtedly will, but what, and how will that look. With all of the risk, why risk it? I don't want acid oceans anymore then I want plastic oceans. I want our biosphere to be stable, not static. I don't want poisonous foods, poisoned air and water.

 

I think you are closing the door after the horse has left the barn, again I see no reason for you quote me and say these things. We do need to try and get a handle on any human inputs into all pollution and global warming, to say other wise is really not very intelligent.

 

 

While this goes away directly from GW, the point about GW is that the impact will be negative to the current global theme anyway you look at it. You will have massive extinctions coupled with all kinds of other change such as invasive species, invasive everything because the global environment again will be changed by GW. Can anyone really speculate what will happen when all the ice melts? That is serious dramatic change in a relatively short period of time.

 

 

Of course change is going to be negative on many currently ecological niches. Change always does have some negative impact. The Cretaceous extinction was damn negative from the stand point of most of Earth's creatures but to us it was a great thing.

 

 

IF you increase CO2 you increase all of its effects. The more or you do this the more change you cause, its really quite simple. I could easily see America if not the industrial world being able to change to something else easily within twenty years if it was truly desired. Point of fact though is its not. That change could easily stave off so much.

 

20 years? You have no clue, it's not just the industrial nations any more, it's every one. The USA and other industrial nations have been changing since I was first aware of what was going on 50 years ago. sometimes it was very fast, some things were not, but change is not something humans do fast. I look around me and I am often amazed we have come so far so fast. you have to have been around when things were much worse to be able to see how much better they actually are. if we could get the crazies to stop doing every thing in their power to demonize much of the change things would go faster. 40 years ago we could have changed from petroleum powering our vehicles to natural gas, would it have been a miracle cure ? No but it would have been much cleaner much faster and put us in a natural evolution toward other technologies that would have been much better but the people who wanted change wanted total change all at once and so we got nothing. any time you push too hard to fast you create problems. It has happened it will again, things are changing about as fast as economics and humans can allow for.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And you cannot say that it will not be just as bad for the environment can you? You can assume that it won't be but that would be the same as assuming that we will or will not survive. There is no definitive answer one way or another. It could be worse, good enough reason to do something about it.

 

Why do you keep saying this? I never said it was a good thing, just an unknown thing. You are looking through human colored glasses take them off and you'll see the changes will not wipe out the earth's ecosystems only change them. the incentive for us is to keep us from being wiped away in favor of another ecosystem we cannot live with.

 

 

 

Too my knowledge nobody has ever said that it would. The fact that it's a possibility if frightening enough for most people to take notice. And I on the other hand have read studies that say it is a possibility. Research runaway greenhouse effect.

 

The Earth has been much warmer than it is now and a much higher CO2 level as well. The Earth has also been much colder, almost frozen over from one pole to the other. runaway greenhouse is a concept that doesn't specifically say the Earth will go that way due to human input. You are grandstanding and exaggerating. these things will only serve to make people ignore you.

[RyanJ]

Why do you keep saying this? I never said it was a good thing, just an unknown thing. You are looking through human colored glasses take them off and you'll see the changes will not wipe out the earth's ecosystems only change them. the incentive for us is to keep us from being wiped away in favor of another ecosystem we cannot live with.

 

If you could see what you just said, you'd realize how wrong you are. Look at it objectively. You said yourself that the ultimate result is unknown. Unknowns tend to have the ability to surprise you.

 

You consider the butterfly effect, that such a small, seemingly insignificant change can fundemantally alter such large scale features - imagine what altering the weather for an entire planet could do. THAT is reason enough to be concerned, the fact that said possibility exists is reason enough to act as though it were true.

 

Would you rather that we take a laid back attitude and just accept that the outcome is unknown or would you rather try to minimize the damage that ultimately could be caused? There can only be one answer to any who look at it objectively.

 

The Earth has been much warmer than it is now and a much higher CO2 level as well. The Earth has also been much colder, almost frozen over from one pole to the other. runaway greenhouse is a concept that doesn't specifically say the Earth will go that way due to human input. You are grandstanding and exaggerating. these things will only serve to make people ignore you.

 

Quite correct. That fact is not disputed. What you fail to consider is that this is hardly the same thing. The circumstances of previous warnings were natural - this one most certainly isn't. Will this make a large difference? Possibly. Is it worth taking the chance that it will be "as before"? No.

 

Haha. Didn't you even read what I said? I quote:

 

[snip]...The fact that it's a possibility if frightening enough for most people to take notice. And I on the other hand have read studies that say it is a possibility. Research runaway greenhouse effect

 

Where did I say that it specifically implied Earth? I said it is considered a possibility. Just as you consider it a possibility that it will not. They are both the same - just on different sides of the scale.

[Tugrul]

I agree that there is Global Warming, but what from I dont know. Is it from the effect of green house gasses, maybe so seen as as we went in to the industrial age the CO2 aswell as the Temp went up (reletive to the CO2 levels). Or is it a natural cycle in which the earth if going through, could be seen as people were growwing grapes in north England (14th century). Or maybe it is both.

[RyanJ]

I agree that there is Global Warming, but what from I dont know. Is it from the effect of green house gasses, maybe so seen as as we went in to the industrial age the CO2 aswell as the Temp went up (reletive to the CO2 levels). Or is it a natural cycle in which the earth if going through, could be seen as people were growwing grapes in north England (14th century). Or maybe it is both.

 

The result is not natural, or certainly not a large fraction of it. Have a look at this if you need some convincing. Be sure to look at the graphs. They are very informative

[swansont]

Here's one that apparently has been submitted for peer review.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

 

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

[ParanoiA]

You [/i']asked for opinions about the petition. It's not as if it were brought up by someone else as a distraction from other discussion.

 

I asked for opinions about the petition, not some left field, entirely irrelevant association to some other junk science routine about creationist tactics.

 

Really Swansont? You're really going to pretend as if that disingenuous pathetically weak appeal to ridicule AND false association by the most relaxed of intellectual standards was a valid response to my overt request for scientific comment?

 

BS. If someone tried to disparage the conclusions of the IPCC citing ACORN corruption you'd be up in arms, pasting a wiki link to a every fallacy you could think of. But when some lefty friend of yours uses creationist babble to comment on a Global Warming petition, then it's something I asked for? Come on man...

 

My intent was very clear that I was requesting a scientific/logical reply to these two issues that I have no academic grounds to refute.

 

Again, don't ever wonder why politics find it's way into these discussions. You do understand this, first hand.

 

 

 

You also seem to have understood my intent just fine here:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

 

 

Thank you. That's precisely what I was looking for. This serves as a terrific example of how a technical article can look impressive to us laymen, and be refutted just as impressively. Any idea on the paper from Lindzen and Choi?

[CaptainPanic]

Hmm...

Global warming isn't proven. The amount of data is insufficient.

 

However, contrary to (rather) popular belief, this does not mean that the opposite is automatically true. Global cooling is even less likely.

 

From the measurements, most (not all) signs seem to point at the scenario of increasing CO2 from us (people in Western countries) and global warming as a result.

[iNow]

Paranoia - You've clearly missed my point, and you are reading into my post things which it simply did not contain, imply, or suggest. Please stop doing that. Thanks.

[swansont]

My intent was very clear that I was requesting a scientific/logical reply to these two issues that I have no academic grounds to refute.

 

I think a lesson here is that intent is never as clear as we think it is.

 

The creationist petitions and Project Steve immediately came to my mind, before I even read iNow's response. To me it's a pretty clear parallel. While your opinion may be that it's a weak response, given that you chose to respond the best (and probably most appropriate) response would have been to point out why you felt it was weak, or to clarify your intentions. Given your reaction, I have no idea what your intentions were in asking "So I come here to ask. What is to be made of the 31,478 signers of this petition?" or what kind of responses you expected.

 

When you ask people what they think, you have to be prepared for a wide spectrum of responses. Complaining about an opinion that was unanticipated or differs with your own? You are the one who opened the door. Caveat Emptor.

 

Time to give this particular melodramadic sub-plot a rest, methinks.

[bascule]

The criteria for being able to "sign" the petition are pretty shaky as well.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

 

Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

 

Well, for one thing, neither computer science nor mathematics are actual sciences. I speak for the computer science side but in my opinion mathematics doesn't count as a science.

 

That said I think computer scientists are generally unqualified to make this sort of statement on the matter, and the same goes for mathematicians. Yes, climate science uses computer models. Yes, climate science uses math. However, these are the tools of climate science. What actually matters are the results.

 

As a computer "scientist" who worked in a support role in the climate science field for 5 years, I look at their model and go "Ugh, why oh why is this written in Fortran?" In certain cases, I am able to spot errors, however, the errors I see are only at the surface level. "Why are you binding this variable and never using it? Did you mean to use it here?" Yes, these are the sorts of things that can add up to simulation failures, but my ability as a computer science to actually judge the validity of the science is extremely limited. When it comes to climate science, I am a layman, and everything I learned has been through osmosis, working side-by-side with climate scientists day after day.

 

It seems this petition is going for a "big tent" of dissenters. It would be much more interesting if the petition specifically included people with backgrounds in the climate and atmospheric sciences.

 

As is, it's rather silly. I don't see it much different than saying "oh, physicists use computers to analyze their results! Let's circulate a petition and see who disagrees with the standard model. We'll take responses from computer scientists too, because physicists use computers!"

[JohnB]

If that is even possible. What if food systems begin to collapse in a few hundred years from it. Sure you will be dead' date=' but would you in the now what to be responsible for all of that death, human and otherwise?

 

Rapid environmental change is never really a good thing for life.[/quote']

 

It's this sort of fuzzy thinking and scaremongering that bugs me. Foodchain, since the entry and exit from the YD period were far more extreme in both scale and rapidity that the current changes, can you point to any major ecological collapse that occurred then?

 

Since the change was extremely rapid and lasted for 1,000 years, surely you can find some sort of factual basis for your fears?

 

RyanJ, there is not now and there never has been the possibility that the Earth will become like Venus. This is another attempt at scaremongering, pure and simple. If you wish to put this idea forward as any sort of realistic possibility, would you explain to the audience why this has not happened in the past? Giving special reference to the periods when CO2 was over, say, 3,000 ppm?

 

While you're at it, could you provide a mechanism for the existence of Ice Ages for the periods when CO2 concentration was over, say, 3,000 ppm?

[pioneer]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html

 

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

 

I would assume this would be part of the discussion, if truth was important. But this is an inconvenient truth, to quote Gore.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

 

Here is an article from Mr. Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. It is called the climate of fear. It sounds like sour grapes until Prof Linden published another inconvenient truth very recently.

 

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

 

Lindzen’s emphasis is on the outgoing LW flux at the top-of-the-atmosphere, and the fact that it is large compared to models. This is inferred to mean, less of a “blanketing” effect from greenhouse gases, and therefore feedbacks which are less positive than the models suggest (or negative in this case).

 

The greenhouse blanket effects, predicted by models, turns out to be over estimated compared to the real data that was published. There is still global warming but the rate is slower than the models predicted since heat escapes easier than expected.

Edited November 20, 2009 by swansont
fix quote tag

[iNow]

I would assume this would be part of the discussion, if truth was important. But this is an inconvenient truth, to quote Gore.

 

Here is an article from Mr. Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. It is called the climate of fear. It sounds like sour grapes until Prof Linden published another inconvenient truth very recently.

 

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

 

Lindzen’s emphasis is on the outgoing LW flux at the top-of-the-atmosphere, and the fact that it is large compared to models. This is inferred to mean, less of a “blanketing” effect from greenhouse gases, and therefore feedbacks which are less positive than the models suggest (or negative in this case).

 

The greenhouse blanket effects, predicted by models, turns out to be over estimated compared to the real data that was published. There is still global warming but the rate is slower than the models predicted since heat escapes easier than expected.

 

You should try actually reading your sources, Pioneer. The source you cite actually debunks the claim you are making. Good stuff, that. Stop cherry-picking sentences which affirm your preconceptions and start reading what the information actually says. You'll look much less foolish...

 

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/