Global Warming is not the problem, we are

[DevilSolution]

Guns dont kill people, wappers do!!

[J2014]

There still is no scientific evidence that proves GW (and calling it climate change- just arbitrary). For that, you need a control, as any scientist understands in doing experiments. The only "control" is another earth that would have been subjected to a climate without man;s influence. . There is no other earth, therefore, no control, therefore, no evidence based on the scientific method.

 

I am not a climate scientist, however from my understanding what you describe would be the the ideal experiment. Obviously that cant be done. The climate models are not however simple statistical correlations that lack controls. They are complex computer simulations that take data from experiments that approximate the relative effects of as many variables as possible that would have an effect on the climate, thereby controlling for them. They then run these models to see how well they match past climate conditions, and how CO₂ has affected the past climate. They then run them forwards in time to see how predicted value of CO₂ will affect the climate. The potential effects of all the variables we can think of that could also produce global warming are controlled for, yet CO₂ emission still are still shown to be causing global warming. Citing specific processes that may act to reverse climate change, or be misconstrued as human climate change, is pointless unless you have knowledge of the statistical and computational models of climate change, and know whether or not those specific processes that can affect the climate have been included in climate models.

 

for example for the whole its the sun argument....

 

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf

 

 

[mattolsen]

@swan...... you jump to conclusions quite quickly don't you? I'm sure that making insubstantial assessments so quickly based on such little evidence is a much more respectable model for scientists. I was stating that many variables are responsible for climate change, so I apologize if I had worded my statement incorrectly. I was simply trying to say that solar fluctuations could logically result in higher temperatures along with increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. There is one significant source of radiation, however, depending on the albedo of various surfaces, different rates of that radiation is absorbed and re-radiated throughout the atmosphere. And the statistical data pertaining to causes of climate change are potentially inaccurate based on the means in which they conduct their research. Statistics only suggest probability, they are not sources of definitive truth. And theories are not laws, they're principle's of explanation of a phenomenon. If we simply accepted all theories in science we might still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So yes, I don't always accept what's supposed truth. Call me a bad scientist if you will, however, your opinion is of no consequence. Good luck on your quest for self-assurance.

[swansont]

@swan...... you jump to conclusions quite quickly don't you?

 

No, not really. This isn't the first time I've run across the arguments you have presented.

 

I'm sure that making insubstantial assessments so quickly based on such little evidence is a much more respectable model for scientists. I was stating that many variables are responsible for climate change, so I apologize if I had worded my statement incorrectly. I was simply trying to say that solar fluctuations could logically result in higher temperatures along with increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. There is one significant source of radiation, however, depending on the albedo of various surfaces, different rates of that radiation is absorbed and re-radiated throughout the atmosphere. And the statistical data pertaining to causes of climate change are potentially inaccurate based on the means in which they conduct their research. Statistics only suggest probability, they are not sources of definitive truth. And theories are not laws, they're principle's of explanation of a phenomenon. If we simply accepted all theories in science we might still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So yes, I don't always accept what's supposed truth. Call me a bad scientist if you will, however, your opinion is of no consequence. Good luck on your quest for self-assurance.

 

Solar fluctuations could logically cause higher temperatures, but science isn't logic. Scientists have empirical evidence that shows that the average solar output has been basically constant for the last ~50 years. The logic led to experiment, and the results of the experiments say that the sun cannot account for the recent warming.

 

Statistics suggest probability. But that's all you have. Experiments give you data, and you have to analyze the data. Ergo, statistics.

 

Theories are not laws. True. Anyone who points this out probably doesn't understand the definition of theory in science. Look it up. Scientists tend not to take people who make this kind of error seriously. I wouldn't call you a bad scientist for the simple reason that you arguments suggest that you aren't a scientist at all.

[Edtharan]

@swan...... you jump to conclusions quite quickly don't you? I'm sure that making insubstantial assessments so quickly based on such little evidence is a much more respectable model for scientists. I was stating that many variables are responsible for climate change, so I apologize if I had worded my statement incorrectly. I was simply trying to say that solar fluctuations could logically result in higher temperatures along with increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Yes, but the scale of this change would not be as large as we have already experienced with GW. In other words, the scale of the change we have already experienced exceeds the scales that this kind of fluctuation could have created. This means that even if this was involved, it can not be the only thing involved. There is some other factor, and that brings us back to greenhous gasses.

 

There is one significant source of radiation, however, depending on the albedo of various surfaces, different rates of that radiation is absorbed and re-radiated throughout the atmosphere.

However, there is only one source of the energy coming into the Earth (the Sun), and only one way for it to leave (Radiation). Not only that, we can measure the albedo of Earth with satellites and do so very accurately.

 

By measuring the amount of energy incoming, to the amount of energy outgoing we can get accurate measurements of what the difference is. And, it is not too hard to show that if one accepts that greenhouse gasses re-radiates absorbed infra-red light (or any light actually), then global warming must occur.

 

The only things needed are direct measurements of the ability of greenhouse gasses to scatter infra-red radiation, and acceptance of the conservation of energy (and if energy did not have to be conserved, then we wouldn't have the problem of GW as we could generate out energy without the need of fossil fuels - and your electricity bill confirms that ).

 

And the statistical data pertaining to causes of climate change are potentially inaccurate based on the means in which they conduct their research. Statistics only suggest probability, they are not sources of definitive truth. And theories are not laws, they're principle's of explanation of a phenomenon. If we simply accepted all theories in science we might still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. So yes, I don't always accept what's supposed truth. Call me a bad scientist if you will, however, your opinion is of no consequence. Good luck on your quest for self-assurance.

The statistical part of all this is when they are trying to work out the consequences of having increased energy in the climate and oceanic systems. The existence of this extra energy, and that it will have consequences has nothing to do with statistics at all. It is only what those exact consequences will be that is subject to probability.

 

Think of it like rolling a stone down a hill. The lumps and bumps of the hill will make the path of the stone and where it lands (and whose window you break) is proabalistic, but the fact that the stone will go down hill is not.

 

The fact is, increasing greenhouse gasses causes them to scatter more radiation, that would other wise leave the Earth, back towards the Earth, thus keeping the energy locked up in the climate systems. This is like the fact that the stone will roll down that hill and stop somewhere. The exact consequences of that are like were the stone ends up and are uncertain (but the fact that the stone will end up somewhere is not).

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

 

 

Here is the more recent solar cycles

 

 

 

 

 

 

I saw these graphs once in another thread entitled: "Are we experiencing the beginning of a new ice age?". It was on a conspiracy theory website, so I held very little credence to their validity or the interpretations lent to them by the author of said thread, particularly since there was no reference to where they had come from.

 

In any case, this is a copy of another post I made some time ago, which seems pertinent to some of the replies related to historical contexts. You'll have to excuse the lack of references, I honestly cannot remember where all the information came from.

 

Anyway, the people who thought that we were headed for an ice age in the 70's were mostly not members of the scientific community. Pre-1970's, it was believed that small changes in the amount of penetrating sunlight could trigger the onset of a new ice-age. They had reason to believe that the greenhouse affect was being augmented greatly by increased CO2 concentrations, but also believed that this was being countered by low lying clouds generateed as a result of dust, smog, contrails, etc. Essentially, they didn't know where the climate was headed. At this time though, the public weren't to aware of the consequences of climate change.

In the early 1970's, the National Science board released a few documents relating to climate change, but they still weren't entirely sure if we were headed for a period of global cooling or one of warming. By this stage, the former actually had a mixed following within the scientific community and a rather more significant one amongst the general public - though the latter was mostly due to misrepresentations of scientific data in the press. A lot of the speculations were a result of steadily deceasing global temperatures from the 1945 to the 1970's. However, by the time this trend was placed in view of the public eye (in about 1970), temperatures had ceased to decrease and the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was begining to become more recognised. Fast forward a few decades, and here we are. We have a much more complete knowledge of climate change, etc. than we did then. You have to remember as well that it wasn't until the 1970's that records of global temperatures were being compiled. It should also be noted that, even despite the lack of understanding of climate change and being on the back of a 25 year decrease in temperatures, scientists still knew that such trends were not reason enough to make predictions on global warming/cooling, etc. The fact is that these trends were quite poorly understood and no one thenn really knew what brought them about, which is what gave rise to much of the conflicting opinions of the time.

 

Also, the notion that interglacial periods such as the one we are currently in have only lasted 10,000 years is a falicy. Current calculations show that the present interglacial cycle would have lasted tens of thousands of years, even without human perturbation. Some scientists believe that the increasing presence of CO2 in our atmosphere will even be enough to completely supress the next ice-age completely, although I don't think this a popularly held belief.

And this:

A 10 year trend is not basis to make any scientifically valid claim in terms of climate predictions. A much more sound indicator comes from observing glacial patterns, since they are some of the more sensitive landmarks to climate change. The following picture shows a compilation of measurements described by Mark Dyurgerov (2002) (later updated by Dyurgerov and Meier (2005)) and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service.

 

From the 2005 paper:

Several independent observations can be applied to confirm the reliability of global glacier volume changes.

 

First, the general trend in volume change and variability are close to those of previously calculated and published results (Dyurgerov and Meier, 1997a, 1997b; Warrick et al., 1996; Dyurgerov, 2002).

48

 

Second, very pronounced peaks in the globally averaged annual mass balance time series curve are found in connection with the strongest explosive volcanic eruptions, in particular Mount Agung in 1963, El Chichon in 1982, and Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (see Fig. 5), with cooling and positive mass balance found regionally and globally for the following 1–3 years (Abdalati and Steffen, 1997; Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000).

 

Third, the warmest years in the late 1980s and 1990s correspond to the most negative mass balances and acceleration of glacier volume losses (Fig. 5).

 

Fourth, the acceleration of glacier volume change presented here shows a consistency with other global changes in the Cryosphere, reduction of sea-ice area and thickness (Laxon et al., 2004), increasing temperature in permafrost and permafrost thawing, acceleration of movement and disintegration of polar ice caps, and outlet and tidewater glaciers in Greenland and Antarctic (Scambos et al., 2000; Zwally et al., 2002; Rau et al., 2004; Rignot et al., 2003; Thomas, 20

 

If you want to find out more about this graph and its implications, the updated 2005 paper by Dyurgerov and Meier can be downloaded for free here .

[JohnB]

Just a few quick points.

 

SMF, on that "97%" of scientists that agree. In the interests of total truth, rather than spin the numbers should be looked at. The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists of whom only 3,146 bothered to reply, so it would appear that looming climate doom isn't high on the priorities for about two thirds of them. Of that number only 5% or 157 described themselves as "Climate Scientists". The 157 were further culled;

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

 

So the "97%" is in fact 75 out of 77 and certainly not out of thousands.

 

You might be interested in this SPPI pdf about the paper which examines its methodology and the numbers. (Although it's rather insulting to warmers) A much better look at the methodology can be found here. A rather interesting point is that the blog author sent the questions to widely known sceptic authors and has their replies.

 

First. All of the significant forcings that can affect climate (not weather) have been accounted for.

 

People keep saying that. Did you say the same before Soloman 2010? Although her team showed Stratospheric Water Vapour may be responsible for 30% of the recent temp rise I don't seem to recall it being mentioned in AR4. How about GCRs? Since they admit that the extent of the effect is currently unknown perhaps it isn't "significant"? Funny how people keep saying that "all the significant factors have been accounted for" and yet we keep finding new ones that nobody knew about. It makes one wonder about the finality of the original statement don't you think.

 

For many it's even odder that each time a new factor is added to the mix (PDO, ENSO, NAO,AO, maybe GCRs) the models still give almost exactly the same answers. A reasonable person would think that if the inputs change the output would change.

 

Edtharan. We are not overdue for a glacial period. The closest analogue for the Holocene is the fourth one back, or Stage 11 in the literature. The evidence is that it was between 20 and 40 thousand years long and had the most similar orbital forcing to now. Based on the Milancovich cycles we are not due a new Ice Age for at least 6,000 years. Any assumptions that anthropogenic forces have somehow "delayed" an Ice Age are therefore wrong. Dr. Jerry McManus from Woods Hole has some good papers on this. (h/t Gavin Schmidt)

 

Yes, but the scale of this change would not be as large as we have already experienced with GW. In other words, the scale of the change we have already experienced exceeds the scales that this kind of fluctuation could have created. This means that even if this was involved, it can not be the only thing involved. There is some other factor, and that brings us back to greenhous gasses.

 

Can you provide a cite for that? All the data I've seen shows three warming periods since the mid 1800s, each lasting for 30 years and with statistically identical slopes. Even if we assume the latest one was entirely due to CO2 it is not outside the bounds of natural variations as demonstrated by the earlier two. The bottom line is that there is nothing particularly unusual about the warming from 1970-2000, it's the same as the period from 1850-1880 which is believed totally natural.

 

One of the biggest difficulties in navigating the "climate debate waters" is distinguishing between what the advocates say the scientists say, what the journalists say the scientists say and what the scientists actually say. A paper correctly using the terms "might" and "could possibly" becomes "We're all going to die" in the hands of the advocate of journo. Similarly the more activist sceptic sites will take "might" and "could possibly" to mean "We really don't have a clue", a totally inaccurate summation of the position.

 

Another big problem is that people don't listen to what is said. Taking Greenland as a case in point, areas that were permafrost in the 20th C were not in the 11th C and the vikings could farm there. This doesn't tell us anything about the mass balance of the glaciers in the interior, it tells us only about the permafrost on the coast. Not does it mean that the coast was neccessarily warmer in the 11th C than now, (and I've been guilty of this assumption) simply due to lag. Local environmental changes always lag the climatic changes. It takes time for the new equilibrium to establish, however since the climate is always changing the equilibrium is never established.

 

Similarly the debate is often couched in the phrase "The climate is warming/changing and man is primarily responsible". I point out that this is not one statement, but two. A person can agree that the world is warming without agreeing that man is primarily responsible, hence graphs of sea ice cover etc are rather pointless. They show the world is warming, big deal we know that, they do not give evidence of attribution. I find the debate from warmers is often about providing evidence that the world is warming and they then think the sceptic isn't listening. We are, it's just that the evidence isn't relevent. Proof of warming is not proof of attribution.

 

Perhaps if I changed the phrase the point would be clearer. If I were to say "The world is warming and God is responsible" and then trotted out all the proofs that the world was in fact warming, would that thereby prove the existence of God? Of course not. Neither does the existence of warming prove the responsibility of man.

Edited May 20, 2011 by JohnB

[FarmForest Research]

If you want to see Global Warming which is a terrible term..go to the Arctic. The Inuit know whats happening as it affects them every day. Its not tomorrow its today and I am tired of the oil argument and all the other carbon based industries confusing the truth. Its boring and really stupid. The carbon feedback from the permafrost and tundra of Russia and Canada will basically stick you to your leather seat as you watch CSI.

[shellibranch]

We are destroying our planet. Global warming is only one of many severe problems. If we cannot live in harmony with nature, animals, insects, trees etc, we will finally destroy ourselves.

[Greg Boyles]

The problem with trying to control population on a per -nation or other per-group basis is that not everyone wants to submit to authoritarian control of their reproductive choices. The other problem is that when people do identify with a nation or other ethnic group, they often feel concern that their group will shrink while others grow. This causes people to reproduce in the interest of bolstering their group/national population vis-a-vis that of others. Then, they preach reproductive control to reduce population to try to get others to curtail their growth to maintain current demographic proportions. However, this benefits larger populations more than smaller ones. Anyway, it's all nonsense because it shouldn't matter whose ethnic group is bigger or smaller, but of course tell that to people who are getting systematically excluded from resources and wealth because they have the 'wrong' ethnic identity.

 

 

Then perhaps we might be forced to consider genetically engineering some sort of biological vector that temporarily infects folks and causes a prolonged period of infertility (several months). I am not suggesting permanent sterilisation here. Perhaps some cold virus strains that do not have any lasting impact on human populations.

 

 

Multiplied across 7 billion humans, several months of infertility when infected by the genetically modified cold virus, would have to significantly reduce average fertility.

 

Unless the genetically modified strains can mutate to form yet a new strain that can re-infect the population, you would have to continually modify new strains to have any lasting effect on global fertility - a bit of a fail safe mechanism.

[penstemo]

"Global warming is a natural cycle" is a flawed argument. Even it is natural, this does not somehow explain away the issue or shield it from scientific inquiry. We should still be able to investigate the nature and source of the energy imbalance that causes temperatures to increase (or decrease). If you want to make that argument, then have a pile of scientific papers which have done that, and identified the energy source(s). The problem is that scientists have done these studies, and natural variations do not account for the warming.

 

If natural variations don't account for the warming then what does?

[iNow]

If natural variations don't account for the warming then what does?

Natural variations account for quite a lot of the dynamics of our climate. However, there has been a very significant upward trend in global average annual temperatures in the recent past when compared to the centuries and millenia before, and that trend cannot be explained by natural variations alone. The evidence of natural variations cannot alone account for either the magnitude or velocity of change we are presently experiencing.

 

When you look at the evidence available, and when you review the conclusions of the thousands of people who study this as their life work, and when you review the research and data which has accumulated in this domain of study for over four decades, and when you couple that with well founded and understood principles of basic physics and chemistry, the answer is clear and irrefutable by any rational well-informed mind.

 

Human activity accounts for the recent warming trend, specifically via the manner in which we remove carbon deposits from the ground and burn them in massive amounts, ultimately releasing a ridiculous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere which wasn't there before. That CO2 then increases the greenhouse effect, ultimately explaining the increasing trend in average annual global temperature.

Edited October 29, 2011 by iNow

[kitkat]

Natural variations account for quite a lot of the dynamics of our climate. However, there has been a very significant upward trend in global average annual temperatures in the recent past when compared to the centuries and millenia before, and that trend cannot be explained by natural variations alone. The evidence of natural variations cannot alone account for either the magnitude or velocity of change we are presently experiencing.

 

When you look at the evidence available, and when you review the conclusions of the thousands of people who study this as their life work, and when you review the research and data which has accumulated in this domain of study for over four decades, and when you couple that with well founded and understood principles of basic physics and chemistry, the answer is clear and irrefutable by any rational well-informed mind.

 

Human activity accounts for the recent warming trend, specifically via the manner in which we remove carbon deposits from the ground and burn them in massive amounts, ultimately releasing a ridiculous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere which wasn't there before. That CO2 then increases the greenhouse effect, ultimately explaining the increasing trend in average annual global temperature.

 

So how to you change this when oil is going to be used until we get the last drop out of earth? How do we change this when big rich corporations influence laws that allow them to continue exploiting the earth by destroying all ecosystems?

[iNow]

Politics and economics don't change any of that. Those are facts, regardless of what oil companies and governments do. As for changing politics and influence, that can only be done by an informed, energized, and active populace. In short, it's not "them" that's the problem. It's "us." Read, learn, discuss... act.

 

That's how you change the concerns you raise.

[questionposter]

Unless I'm mistaken, global warming isn't threatening the existence of human kind, but rather the existence of some kinds of humans.

 

I would say that blobal warming does not mean the end of the human race, especially with all the technology we have. All it means is we will live in a much more hostile world in the future.

Edited November 4, 2011 by questionposter

[kitkat]

Politics and economics don't change any of that. Those are facts, regardless of what oil companies and governments do. As for changing politics and influence, that can only be done by an informed, energized, and active populace. In short, it's not "them" that's the problem. It's "us." Read, learn, discuss... act.

 

That's how you change the concerns you raise.

 

 

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment? The public is informed of conflicting information all of the time on this subject and it is no wonder that half can't agree with the other half of what is real or not. All you have to do is follow the funding trail of money to observe that we do not always get the truth, especially at election time for the active populace to "act" or not act.

 

Politics and economics don't change any of that. Those are facts, regardless of what oil companies and governments do. As for changing politics and influence, that can only be done by an informed, energized, and active populace. In short, it's not "them" that's the problem. It's "us." Read, learn, discuss... act.

 

That's how you change the concerns you raise.

 

 

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment? The public is informed of conflicting information all of the time on this subject and it is no wonder that half can't agree with the other half of what is real or not. All you have to do is follow the funding trail of money to observe that we do not always get the truth, especially at election time for the active populace to "act" or not act.

[iNow]

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment?

Correct. That is precisely what I expect from people who wish to change the world in which they live. Whether for better or worse, those changes will come only after people read, learn, discuss, and act. Sitting on your ass whining and taking on a victim mindset will not be what it takes to carry you forward and accomplish your goals. Failure to realize this is perhaps part of the problem.

Edited November 15, 2011 by iNow

[johnny196775]

factories for your cars and ipods is ganna kill us all. technology is to blame. i hate to say it.

Edited November 24, 2011 by johnny196775

[Phi for All]

factories for your cars and ipods is ganna kill us all. technology is to blame. i hate to say it.

I would say it's the way the technology is used that is to blame. We make things affordable on the front end and then pay the consequences on the back end. We've wasted a lot of resources on inefficient convenience.

 

Technology also helped make us aware of the problem, so it's not all bad. It will most likely play a great part in helping to deal with it, too.

[EdEarl]

An analogy:

 

The house is too hot. Dad says I'm not to blame, I bought a house with windows and fans. Mom says, I'm not to blame, I cook and clean. Bobby says, I'm not to blame, the fan switches are too high for me to reach and I am not strong enough to open the windows. Betty says, I am not to blame, it is hot because of the weather. So, they argue about who is to blame.

 

What good comes from assigning blame?

[overtone]

What good comes from assigning blame?

If you can't determine cause, you can't reliably determine response. If assigning cause is assigning blame, then you can't avoid assigning blame if you want to figure out what to do about something.

 

If every reasonable attempt to determine cause is successfully fought as an attempt to assign blame, you will never be able to figure out what you should do. .

 

If some people benefit from prevention of or interference with what should be done, there is an obvious tactic available to them.

 

For the house being too hot, say, the possibilities include house fire, stovetop cooking, weather outside, broken air conditioner, malfunctioning furnace, very large or numerous electrical devices running, doors or windows shut/open, shades pulled/open, misperception of heat by feverish residents, etc. These require much different responses.

Edited June 10, 2013 by overtone

[EdEarl]

If you can't determine cause, you can't reliably determine response.

Great answer.

 

By understanding causal factors (e.g., automobile exhaust) we may use technology to abate climate change.

 

It is plausible that understanding psychological and social factors that got us to this point on the cusp of a major climate change may lead to strategies that help us modify people's behavior to reduce their effects on climate. But social engineering is IMO unlikely to help.

 

IMO we should focus on causes, not blame.

[overtone]

 

IMO we should focus on causes, not blame.

We are dealing with economic and political entities that regard the current research and theory indicated ascription of causation as a threat to their wealth and power.

 

Their responses to such threats are among our main obstacles to using technology to abate the effects of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

[EdEarl]

We are dealing with economic and political entities that regard the current research and theory indicated ascription of causation as a threat to their wealth and power.

 

Their responses to such threats are among our main obstacles to using technology to abate the effects of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

I agree that politics, at least in the US, are $#!+, and are helping to make climate change worse with pitifully few exceptions. I fear that future shock has affected the political system as a Taser affects a person. The political system responds too slowly to do anything valuable. By the time laws are passed, the reason for them has passed, at least for transient phenomenon. My hope lies in technology and businesses.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

It's time to think about what would happen if all societies continue in this degradation rhythm. Perhaps near one billion polluting vehicles plus other sources are enough for endangering the atmosphere, climate and finally health.