Give me your opinions about global warming

[1veedo]

lol a bit harsh there don't you think swansont? Maybe just to expand on what he said, scientists do have fairly good predictions for how global warming will impact climate change in the future.

 

Here's a link to the Summery for Policy Makers "edition" of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2FSPM2feb07.pdf&ei=6iZ4RpKTK5zgggTrj7ivCA&usg=AFQjCNHGFrsbqtTFpoA9PTw6PXidmuAu3Q&sig2=Jc1bTOwzm4lP3SfVpCCiMg

 

It's rather short and easy to follow. As a future scientist I'm sure you'll enjoy it

[swansont]

Being wrong and learning from your mistakes is part of the education process, and being told that you are wrong is not a personal attack (which is another important lesson to learn).

 

Science isn't guesswork; all results are not equally valid, despite how things might be portrayed in the media.

[freewheelin]

Being wrong and learning from your mistakes is part of the education process, and being told that you are wrong is not a personal attack (which is another important lesson to learn).

 

Science isn't guesswork; all results are not equally valid, despite how things might be portrayed in the media.

 

Take care in the future not to willfully misinterpret a friendly colloquialism for a literal, scientific statement. Furthermore, please understand that a choice to not immediately butt-heads over the facts suggest a newcomer getting used to the feel of a forum and not a lack of knowledge on any given issue.

 

Lessons all around - my, wasn't today an educational day?

[freewheelin]

lol a bit harsh there don't you think swansont? Maybe just to expand on what he said, scientists do have fairly good predictions for how global warming will impact climate change in the future.

 

Here's a link to the Summery for Policy Makers "edition" of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2FSPM2feb07.pdf&ei=6iZ4RpKTK5zgggTrj7ivCA&usg=AFQjCNHGFrsbqtTFpoA9PTw6PXidmuAu3Q&sig2=Jc1bTOwzm4lP3SfVpCCiMg

 

It's rather short and easy to follow. As a future scientist I'm sure you'll enjoy it

 

Thanks!

 

Truthfully, though, I've been more interested in trying to snag papers from the supportings docs.

[SkepticLance]

To freewheelin

 

Another piece of education I am sure you have recently received, is to learn just how arrogant other people can be, when they think they have all the truth.

[1veedo]

To freewheelin

 

Another piece of education I am sure you have recently received, is to learn just how arrogant other people can be, when they think they have all the truth.

Eg people like SkepticLance whom think they're smarter than thousands of scientists around the planet.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo.

 

No.

 

Arrogance consists of telling people you have the truth, and they are wrong, where there is reasonable doubt.

 

I have never claimed to 'have the truth'. I have, however, consistently pointed out where doubt exists. You, on the other hand, do not ever admit being in the wrong, even when clear cut evidence shows that you are.

 

Like the case where you claimed greenhouse gases were the dominant cause of warming from 1900 onwards. I showed with clear cut data, that from 1900 to 1940 at least, the dominant warming mechanism was solar. Only from 1976 can your statement apply. In spite of the data, you have refused to admit you were wrong. That is arrogance.

[Dak]

for the love of...

 

okey dokey. let's put this in context. for those of you new to this forum, as far as i'm aware swansont is the only actual scientist (i.e., PhD, works as a research phisisisit. astrophisics, iirc) who's posted in this thread.

 

so lets take swansont, times him by a couple of thousand, and chuck this army of swansonts (who, remember, are at the very least 'quite clever', and are very knowledgeable about phisics/maths, and specifically trained in 'working stuff out without making mistakes'), and give them a couple of years to argue about an aspect of phisics. access to labs, data, yadda yadda yadda. and, they all keep an eye on one-another's work, and are quick to point out one-anothers mistakes (as freewheelin found out), and are very pedantic in doing so (as freewheelin found out).

 

now, after these couple of years, the army of swansonts come back with a statement such as "we're virtually certain that, having looked at the evidence, which we actually understand, every 1/4 million years on average (but with a very large standard deviation), the earths magnetic field dwindles for about a century, then comes back inverted (i.e., magnetic north would be at the geographical south-pole, and vice-a-versa)".

 

what you, SkepticLance, are doing, is turning round to this army of swansonts, and -- without knowing that much about phisics yourself, without knowing how to assess and interpret data properly, without having looked at the evidence as much, and, in all likelyhood, without being as clever -- and saying 'bollocks'.

 

sure, you'll probably tag on a reason. maybe it'd be "if the magnetic field pieriodically goes down, then the lack of shielding from cosmic rays should cause mass extinction events, which we have not observed coinsiding with when we think the magnetic fields have collapsed". and, you'd kindof have a point; however, you'd be overlooking the simple fact that one of these swansonts, in all likelyhood, has, in fact, considered that rather obvious theory (it was the sun. jesus, i bet no climatologist thought of that one as an explanation of how the earth could be getting hotter ) yet still decided that, overall, there was still enough evidence to accept that, periodically, the earth's magnetic field collapses and inverts. your inability to fully understand why the lack of extinctions is compatable with the 'magnetic invertion theory' indicates that you don't fully understand every naunce of the subject, not that the swansont-legion has messed up.

 

for completeness, what 1veedo is doing is pointing out that the army of swansonts, being clever, knowledgable, having access to the data, having spent a long time on it, and having checked each others work and all come to an agreement, are probably right, even if their opinion is different from yours.

 

skeptisism is belief inertia; you need it, otherwize a tiny amount of data will get you believing in crazy shit (see the speculations forum); however, you must, at some point, actually allow your beliefs to be shifted, otherwize what you have isn't skeptisism, it's bloody-minded refusal to accept something.

 

now, if you still think that the scientific consensus is wrong, then i suggest you do one of two things:

 

a/ publish. you'll get tons of fame and money. maybe some chicks.

or

b/ have an argument with swansont that basically revolves around your ability, on your own, to out-think a couple of thousand of him, in a fraction of the time and without access to the same data, and lets see how that goes. for bonus points, argue that you're not the arrogant one whilst doing so.

 

if you don't understand an aspect of GW, then by all means ask -- but try to remember that you're on a science site, so acknowledging that the machine that is science is better than you at discerning reality is considered 'humble', not 'arrogant'. also, 'science agrees with me' wins you the argument.

[SkepticLance]

To Dak.

 

Before you set out to criticise me, make sure you understand my position. Otherwise you end up looking like a fool.

 

I have not denied global warming, or even that greenhouse gases are the current prime contributor to global warming. What I have done is pointed out some of the errors in others arguments. The example I used was

1veedo refusing to believe that solar activity was the prime driver of global warming from 1900 to 1940, which is correct, and is clearly and demonstrably correct from the data.

 

The problem is that global warming has become impossibly political. People of various kinds (and especially the media) have exaggerated portions of it to a ridiculous extent.

 

And yes, you are correct in saying that I do not accept anything as true merely because someone quotes some authority. The history of science has lots of examples where the existing paradigm was later shown to be wrong. Conclusions should be drawn from good data. Not from some authority.

 

The best example of this is plate tectonics. An idea that was utterly rubbished by authority for many years, but eventually demonstrated to be the best model of reality.

 

The details of global warming need to be questioned by skeptics, because an uncritical acceptance will lead only to error.

[bascule]

What I have done is pointed out some of the errors in others arguments. The example I used was

1veedo refusing to believe that solar activity was the prime driver of global warming from 1900 to 1940, which is correct, and is clearly and demonstrably correct from the data.

 

Yeah, that's cool... nobody cares.

 

People are trying to argue about what's going on now.

 

Bringing up what happened 67 years ago is a red herring. Unless it has some relevance to current trends, your point is moot.

[Dak]

The problem is that global warming has become impossibly political. People of various kinds (and especially the media) have exaggerated portions of it to a ridiculous extent.

 

that's true. but, that doesn't in any way weaken the scientific stance, which you seem to be reluctant to accept.

 

And yes, you are correct in saying that I do not accept anything as true merely because someone quotes some authority. The history of science has lots of examples where the existing paradigm was later shown to be wrong. Conclusions should be drawn from good data. Not from some authority.

 

and again we return to the idea that you are somehow better at drawing these conclusions that science is.

 

yes, science is inperfect; that's why huge branches of it are dedicated to determining how sure we can be of something, and why you end up with statemens such as 'virtually certain that blah blah blah'.

 

(as a point, being wrong occasionally, but allways stating 'x almost definately true' isn't, technically, being wrong, as long as you're almost allways right when you say 'x is almost certainly true').

 

now, virtualy certain != certain. aspects of GW could be wrong. that doesn't change the fact that you, on your own, cannot more reliably guage the situation than science. given that science has said x, if you do not accept x, then you are, essentially, saying that you can discern reality better with a fraction of the effort. which was my point.

 

seriously, try applying your attitude to evolution, or electromagnetism, or medicine, or aeronautics, any other part of science, to see how silly it is.

 

i agree that you have to be careful, both of the authority being quoted and the faithfulness of the quote. but actual science is still pretty damn accurate (and, again, more reliable than you or me).

 

The details of global warming need to be questioned by skeptics, because an uncritical acceptance will lead only to error.

 

again, if you actually have faith that the errors you've pointed out are actual errors, then publish them. but you've got to admit, that when it filters down to our level, we're way past 'beta-testing' and the likelyhood that we'll spot any mistakes that the scientists missed is slim. I doubt, in the history of science, that there are many papers identifying a flaw in current consensus that was mentioned to the scientist by a member of the public after the consensus made the 9-o'clock news.

[SkepticLance]

Dak said :

 

 

again, if you actually have faith that the errors you've pointed out are actual errors, then publish them. but you've got to admit, that when it filters down to our level, we're way past 'beta-testing' and the likelyhood that we'll spot any mistakes that the scientists missed is slim. I doubt, in the history of science, that there are many papers identifying a flaw in current consensus that was mentioned to the scientist by a member of the public after the consensus made the 9-o'clock news.

 

This, at least, is a true statement. I sometimes think that, on these forums, people get a bit too serious. If no correction is made to a science 'after the 9 O'clock news', you can absolutely guarantee that no scientist cares a fig what we discuss on these forums.

 

The global warming sceptic bit is carried on by professional climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen and a thousand like him. What I, or you, or anyone else on this forum says, is so much scientific hot air.

 

I do my best to follow the debate, and I contribute on this or other threads what I have learned. Since the professional climate scientists who are global warming sceptics question the results of IPCC and similar, then I am quite prepared to pass on these questions. As I said, I do not dispute clear cut data. I question interpretation.

 

At the end of the day, what you or I, or 1veedo, or swansont say matters not a damn. No-one who has any influence is reading, anyway. My own attitude is that I am on the forum for entertainment only.

[Dak]

The global warming sceptic bit is carried on by professional climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen and a thousand like him.

 

yup. and the majority of the professional climate scientists (who are, by profession, skeptical) accept the current consensus; and of those few who don't, none publish papers arguing against the consensus (afaik). so theres no real scientific debate against the consensus. is my main point

 

take Lindzen. his publication history is here. his last (afaict) peer-reviewed paper arguing that the current theory on GW might be incorrect is "Reconciling observations of global temperature change", eg: The absence of mid-tropospheric warming would, therefore, tend to rule out Global greenhouse warming.

 

however, more recent papers on the subject tend to go:

 

Observations suggest that the earth's surface has been warming relative to the troposphere for the last 25 years; this is not only difficult to explain but also contrary to the results of climate models. We provide new evidence that the disparity is real. [...] This suggests that the disparity likely is a result of near-surface processes.

 

the assumption now seems to be that there's enough weight behind the argument that co2 causes GW that any discrepancies are more likely caused by unknown mechanisms than indicitive of the co2 theory being wrong (okkram's razor: which is more likely, an unknown mechanism that explains this, or several unknown mechanisms that invalidate the idea that co2 causes GW + another unknown mechanism that is causing GW in a manner consistant with this observation).

 

it's things like this that make me inclined to leave it to the experts, and the reviews

 

Since the professional climate scientists who are global warming sceptics question the results of IPCC and similar, then I am quite prepared to pass on these questions.

 

yes and no. the 2001 IPCC report is pretty much an accurate reflection of the consensus at 2001 (a paper was even published supporting this statement). the 2007 one, tho, does not so clearly have the support of most climate scientists.

 

so i'd be questioning the current one along with you, but not the 2001 one.

 

from wiki:

 

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:

 

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2001] represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

[SkepticLance]

To Dak

 

As I said before, if you want to attack my position on global warming, first make sure you understand my position.

 

I accept that the world is warming and that human released greenhouse gases are a major cause. I just question some of the details, and some of the exaggerated predictions. The world sees repeated examples of predictions of catastrophe, and few if any come true. I strongly suspect this is true of global warming.

 

For example : the newspaper two days ago reported on a bunch of scientists who predicted global sea level rises averaging 2 metres by 2100. Current rise is 3 mm per year. There is rather a substantial area of doubt on their prediction.

[swansont]

Take care in the future not to willfully misinterpret a friendly colloquialism for a literal, scientific statement. Furthermore, please understand that a choice to not immediately butt-heads over the facts suggest a newcomer getting used to the feel of a forum and not a lack of knowledge on any given issue.

 

Lessons all around - my, wasn't today an educational day?

 

I always try to take care not to willfully misinterpret statements. And I generally assume that misinterpretations by others are not willful. You might consider doing the same.

[swansont]

To Dak

 

As I said before, if you want to attack my position on global warming, first make sure you understand my position.

 

I accept that the world is warming and that human released greenhouse gases are a major cause. I just question some of the details, and some of the exaggerated predictions. The world sees repeated examples of predictions of catastrophe, and few if any come true. I strongly suspect this is true of global warming.

 

For example : the newspaper two days ago reported on a bunch of scientists who predicted global sea level rises averaging 2 metres by 2100. Current rise is 3 mm per year. There is rather a substantial area of doubt on their prediction.

 

On what scientific basis do you critique the prediction?

 

A summary of the work

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/06/planet_earth_today_imminent_pe.php

 

The paper:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k7p4068780/fulltext.html#fig2

 

They argue that the IPCC has underestimated the contribution of ice sheet melting, and that it may be bigger, sooner.

 

"It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem, but we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in palaeoclimate data. An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway. "

 

I didn't see anything about two meters by 2100 in a quick scan; I suspect that may be media packaging.

[armygas]

Why don't you all do two things:

 

1) Do a pubmed search on "global warming" (http://www.pubmed.gov)

 

 

2) goto the IPCC's website: http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

 

That way you will see that there is roughly the same amount of evidence presented by both sides (the doomsdayers and the others).

[1veedo]

I have not denied global warming' date=' or even that greenhouse gases are the current prime contributor to global warming. What I have done is pointed out some of the errors in others arguments. The example I used was

1veedo refusing to believe that solar activity was the prime driver of global warming from 1900 to 1940, which is correct, and is clearly and demonstrably correct from the data.[/quote']Oh please SkepticLance.

 

This is what SkepticLance says: "solar activity was the prime driver of global warming from 1900 to 1940"

 

This is what the science says: "The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970." Specifically between 1900 and 1949 the solar contribution was 40% that of greenhouse gases with a radiative forcing of .35 W/m^2.

 

Lean et al. (1995). "Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change." Geophysical Research Letters 22:23, 3195-3198.

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo

 

We are repeating old arguments.

 

As I pointed out before, if you look at the period of 1880 to 1940 you will see :

 

1. Increases in greenhouse gases are fairly steady over the whole period.

 

2. From 1880 to 1910, the world is cooling. From 1910 to 1940 there is substantial warming at 0.4 Celsius.

 

3. The only significant difference between the two periods that can explain cooling for 30 years changing to warming for 30 years is changes in solar activity as shown by sunspots.

 

The conclusion is obvious and clear cut.

[1veedo]

The contributions between anthropogenic factors and solar irradiance are about equal. There are always uncertainties here but when we're talking 60% vs 40% we're talking about two factors that are about even in magnitude. Your argument has no scientific basis. I clearly have a reference to support my point, which really isn't an argument or a position but more of a statement of fact.

 

The solar influence was much more significant during this period, I'll give you that, but it wasn't the "primary driver." On the same token neither really were human factors.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo

 

As before, you evade the evidence.

Two periods, each 30 years. Each had equivalent increase in CO2. The first had a significant temperature drop and the second a major temperature increase. The only major difference in warming influence was solar.

 

And you still say that the greenhouse gas influence was just as potent.

 

I give up. You are a lost cause! You have no interest in data. Instead, you read what your personal god (IPCC) says and bow down and worship.

[Dak]

To Dak

 

As I said before, if you want to attack my position on global warming, first make sure you understand my position.

 

I accept that the world is warming and that human released greenhouse gases are a major cause.

 

the scientific consensus is 'majour cause'.

 

As I pointed out before, if you look at the period of 1880 to 1940 you will see :

 

1. Increases in greenhouse gases are fairly steady over the whole period.

 

2. From 1880 to 1910, the world is cooling. From 1910 to 1940 there is substantial warming at 0.4 Celsius.

 

i'd hardly say that from 1880 to 1910 the world is cooling. you seem to be measuring from the top of a peak to the bottom of a trough, which gives false impressions. eg, this period seems to have changed by -0.2C (with a period of heating in the middle); however, reading from 1875 to 1915 gives an increase of what looks to be about +0.05C. odd, that.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg

 

3. The only significant difference between the two periods that can explain cooling for 30 years changing to warming for 30 years is changes in solar activity as shown by sunspots.

 

I don't see any odd sunspot activity

 

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cycle1.html

[SkepticLance]

Dak said :

 

i'd hardly say that from 1880 to 1910 the world is cooling. you seem to be measuring from the top of a peak to the bottom of a trough, which gives false impressions. eg, this period seems to have changed by -0.2C (with a period of heating in the middle); however, reading from 1875 to 1915 gives an increase of what looks to be about +0.05C. odd, that.

 

You can argue that the cooling is minor, and I accept that. The point is that, in spite of little or no difference in greenhouse gas emissions, the first 30 years shows cooling, if slight, and the second 30 years shows very substantial warming at 0.4 C. You cannot blame the substantial warming on greenhouse gases, since they are pretty similar to the 1880 to 1910 lot.

 

Your graph of sunspot activity is hard to interpret. There are other graphs which do not track the 11 year cycle so closely - instead plotting longer term trends, which show the differences more clearly.

 

For example :

 

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

[1veedo]

SkepticLance I think the biggest problem here is a lack of understanding that the reason temperatures are so high today is because of human activities. Solar irradiance represents natural influences in the climate. The CO2 release between 1900 and 1950 is responsible for about half, or 50%, of the total increase in temperatures during this period. They are also responsible for the fact that temperatures din't fall very dramatically between the 1940s and 70s because of sulfate aerosols and they are also responsible for almost all of the dramatic increase in temperature after the 70s. If it weren't for human greenhouse emissions current temperatures would be much lower than they are today and we're not talking about just the temperature rise from the 70s on; we're talking about the total effect over the entire 20th century (including half of the rise between 1900 and 1950 where you're claiming the "driver" is solar influences).

 

CO2 increased all along this period as well. The sun is not the only culprit in this picture. If it were the sun alone temperatures would be at about -.2C on this graph, having only risen about .1C from 1860 to 1950 total and very little afterwards.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said

 

The CO2 release between 1900 and 1950 is responsible for about half, or 50%, of the total increase in temperatures during this period.

 

1veedo,

I think the big difference between you and I on this subject is that you are convinced by authority, and I am not. I am only interested in data. If the IPCC makes the statement that CO2 accounts for half the temperature rise, you appear convinced by that. I am not. I want to see the basic data. I have shown you that basic data, and you still refuse to accept that solar activity is more important.

 

It probably does not matter anyway. As I am sure others will be pointing out, what happened from 1900 to 1940 is not longer of importance. It is what is happening today that counts. And in the situation today, the data, as well as the opinions of authority, suggest that CO2 is much more important.