OT: Global Warming - Real or Contrived?

[AJColossal]

Anyone here a fan of time traveller John Titor? According to him global warming is not a concern in 2036. Although I guess people have bigger problems considering how rampant mad cow disease becomes and the fact that billions died during nuclear war in the early-mid 21st century.

So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[RobVarak]

contrived. I know you don't like that it's 'become' a political issue, but it always HAS been a political issue. We are not going to destroy the earth, because God won't let us. Whether you believe in God or not is another matter entirely, but then again, I don't know that it is.

Now that is interesting. Are you really saying that man lacks the free will to destroy the plant? Or do you mean that it is through divine design that man will always move to save the planet? Or something else?

Any of the above seem to be completely untenable. The planet is of a fixed age and fixed lifespan based on its place in the universe. Man is clearly technologically capable of advancing that end date by nuking, polluting or poisoning the planet to the point of destroying life here.

I'm not saying we are doing so at this point, but seriously questioning how one can believe that God "won't let" humanity exercise its free will in this regard.

I don't mean in any way to be disrespectful, Teal. I've just never heard that particular argument before and find it a bit...dubious.

[JackB1]

Very good post Alex. There are signs all around us, but until it effects our day to day comforts, we won't take notice. Polar bears are dying off because their habital is melting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 062244.htm In 10 years they will be extinct. Who cares?

First of all, sorry for my English.
There is one thing that a few people here missunderstood. The weather and the predictions of it is one thing, and the studies about the global warming, tha causes and the consequences is another thing. So please, don't say things like...If they can not predict tomorrows weather how can I trust them with the future?...
You can find a lot of information and images about the change in the last year. Yes the weather in the earth is changing constantly, but when you see that a Glaciar in Alaska has melted in less than a century, you know that there is something different. If you see that in less that five years, three iceberg with the size of Texas has been displaced, and that didn;t happened since the Glaciar Age. You have to ask yourself if that is not weird. If you see how in the South of Spain (my country) the desert land has increase in more than 200% in the last 12 years...don't you think that we have to ask ourself what is happening.
I am not going to enter in issues like, the scientist and famous people like M. Crickton being paid by the big oil companies, to say the oposite, or the pressure that the government is impossing to scientis to use different words in their reports. Or the last study in California that says that there are more young people dying of respiratory problems in the last five years that in more than were between 1900-1975, seventy five years!!!!.
We can close our eyes, vote for Republicans or Democrats (until now none of them has made anything about it) but the problem is there, and it is more important that we can imagine if we don't change soon.

Thanks for your comprehension with the language.

Alex

[Brando70]

This is from Science, one of the preeminent journals, in 2004. The author did a search on articles published in peer-reviewed journals about climate change. Out of nearly 1000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, not a single article disputed that humans are influencing, on some level, climate change. If you want to see that as some tree-hugging, communist-loving, gay-marrying liberal conspiracy, you have that right. I'm going to believe the scientists myself.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Excerpt:

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

[vader29]

Anyone here a fan of time traveller John Titor? According to him global warming is not a concern in 2036. Although I guess people have bigger problems considering how rampant mad cow disease becomes and the fact that billions died during nuclear war in the early-mid 21st century.

So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Does he know if the Penguins end up staying in Pittsburgh?

[RandyM]

Very good post Alex. There are signs all around us, but until it effects our day to day comforts, we won't take notice. Polar bears are dying off because their habital is melting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 062244.htm In 10 years they will be extinct. Who cares?

Let's be very accurate here. the link you posted does not say that "polar bears are dying off". I can't find anything on google that shows any data showing that this is happening.

This is a PROJECTION. This is someone saying: "Looks like A is happening, which will cause B which means that Polar Bears are going to die off".

Let's not make the science say something it doesn't say. I'm open to the idea that polar bears may be in trouble, but you saying that "polar bears are dying off" is a misrepresentation of what the articles are saying. This is a 'projected' problem, not a current problem.

Randy

[RandyM]

[quote="Brando70"]This is from Science, one of the preeminent journals, in 2004. The author did a search on articles published in peer-reviewed journals about climate change. Out of nearly 1000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, not a single article disputed that humans are influencing, on some level, climate change. If you want to see that as some tree-hugging, communist-loving, gay-marrying liberal conspiracy, you have that right. I'm going to believe the scientists myself.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686


Brando, you need to google a bit more on her. Her 'search' was flawed and is busted here:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oresk ... rrata.html

[RandyM]

I'll also add to my previous post that I did look at the links to the papers mentioned by the blogger and I agree that it is disputable what constitutes 'doubt', etc.

There is a fair amount of subjectivity in the interpretations.

Nonetheless...you mentioned 'I'll believe the scientists'. as if the scientists are one entity in complete agreement on this issue, and that is just NOT the case. I believe scientists too - it's just that I believe a different bunch than you do.

Randy

[RandyM]

More gas on the fire:

I have been looking up stuff related to peer review to see what other people are saying about 'peer review' and how much something can be trusted that comes out of it, and came across this link:

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1156978676.shtml

Excerpt below:

I was literally aghast at the Wegman group's report. It makes it clear that only a tiny handful of researchers are at the center of most research and most public policy recommendations on climate change, and that practically no one outside this tight little clique-ridden community is in charge of reviewing their work. They all simply review each other's work--and now literally dozens of papers in the field, along with general practices and procedures in the field, have been independently reviewed and found deeply flawed.

Worst of all, although the Wegman report does not say this openly, anyone who knows how taxpayer funding of science recognizes this (and it is all over the Wegman report by inference): Practically all the taxpayer funding for this climate research, much of it clearly shoddy, is controlled by this same Good Ol' Boy Network with practically no independent review, who simply "peer review" each other in a not particularly anonymous way while they dole out each other's grants and approve each other's papers.

[Leebo33]

Or the last study in California that says that there are more young people dying of respiratory problems in the last five years that in more than were between 1900-1975, seventy five years!!!!.

What does this prove in itself? Maybe young people died from a lot of other causes and couldn't live as long as they do today to even develop respiratory problems? Don't you think it's very interesting that the year interval is 1900-1975? Why not use 1825 to 1900 or go back even further before the industrial age? I can think of a lot of other reasons people would die young between 1900 and 1975. Don't you think a lot of young people died during WI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and weren't around during that period to develop respiratory problems? Maybe more young people were already dead from things such as malnutrition, traffic accicents before seatbelt use was prevelent, drunk drivers, child labor working conditions, etc.

I'm all for researching and being cautious, but this is a political issue now and there is no turning back. People will find the science or evidence to support whatever conclusion they want to draw.

Last year the world was ending because of Katrina and the other monster hurricanes and this year I don't hear a peep out of the people that were saying the sky was falling last year. If you want to use a one year sample of hurricane activity as support for global warming (as some but certainly not *all* did), then what can you say when there are no hurricanes? The only thing you can do is look for something else as support.

[Jared]

Randy,

Just taking a little break to address some of the stuff you've posted in this thread:

First, the retort of the science article that Brando linked to has serious serious issues. Orestes (who wrote the Science article) did a search for articles containing "global climate change", and her study is correct: not a single article disputed the climate change consensus. Peiser's (the one who wrote the retort in the blog) criticism was that she should have done a broader search, so he included more terms. In that search, he says that 34 articles "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’.” These abstracts were posted on Deltoid, and most did not "reject or doubt" anthropogenic global warming, as the article claims. Peiser later admitted that he made mistakes in this supposed takedown.

Second, polar bears are dying off.

Link

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Polar bear cubs in Alaska's Beaufort Sea are much less likely to survive compared to about 20 years ago, probably due to melting sea ice caused by global warming, a study released on Wednesday said.

The study, published by the U.S. Geological Survey, estimated that only 43 percent of polar bear cubs in the southern Beaufort Sea survived their first year during the past five years, compared to a 65 percent survival rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

"The changes in survival of cubs are very dramatic," said the study's author Steven Amstrup, polar bear project leader for the USGS Alaska Science Center.

The falling survival rate comes as a warming climate has melted much of the sea ice off Alaska's northern coast, limiting polar bears from hunting for food at the ice's edge, Amstrup said.

Third, the scientific consensus in the 70s was NOT that there was a "coming ice age". The wikipedia entry on Global Cooling has a good review on this point.

I don't mean to be harsh. But with point after point being wrong (and the pushing of stuff like junkscience.com), you might want to take a step back and critically examine your sources on the stuff that you're posting.

And to reply to an earlier post, I use the phrase "hacks and subpar scientists" for those that do bad work. I can't say that everyone that conflicts with the current consensus is a hack, nor have I ever said that. However, I can say that people like the guy at junkscience.com IS a hack, because of the body of his work. People like him are not attacked because of their position....people write papers showing the flaws in their work. If people repeatedly pushed flawed science, or flawed evidence, then that's being a hack.

[GTHobbes]

Human nature going all the way back to Pompeii has been to ignore warnings and roll the dice. If the scientists can't agree, I doubt we'll all agree on here. All I know is, those computer images of Florida, Manhattan, parts of Europe, etc. being completely covered underwater from the melting glaciers (from Al Gore's movie) are sure hard to forget if you've ever seen 'em.

If the only ones who stand to gain by continuing to do what we've been doing are the Exxons and BPs of the world, I don't see why we can't go ahead and just make the change tomorrow instead of 20% over 10 years. Are we worried about the gas attendants? The truck drivers? Maybe I'm too dense, but I don't understand who we're even talking about here with the references to "wrecking the economy." I also hate to keep beating a dead horse, but isn't $39 billion in PROFIT (not revenues) in 1 year enough to keep that poor company afloat until they figure out an alternative? Then again, with the cost of running a presidential campaign getting to be so high these days...

[GTHobbes]

Anyone here a fan of time traveller John Titor? According to him global warming is not a concern in 2036. Although I guess people have bigger problems considering how rampant mad cow disease becomes and the fact that billions died during nuclear war in the early-mid 21st century.

So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Does he know if the Penguins end up staying in Pittsburgh?

Great posts, both of 'em.

[TheHiddenTrack]

The lack of knowledge on this subject (and science in general) is alarming. But to be honest it's not easy to know who to believe because this subject has become a political issue.

Some Facts:

1. There is a scientific consensus that THERE IS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING (this was formed after 50 years of intense disagreements in the scientific community and has been answered after many studies). So to answer the topic heading, it is REAL.

2. Nobody can say what this means for the future (although there is reason to be concerned). Sorry Al.

Unwarranted hysteria is the tendency for some on the left.

Denial and ignorance is the tendency for some on the right.

It's a complex issue that actually does have some legitimate minds in disagreement on some of the implications of what a temperature increase will do and what we should do to try and adjust.

Some think it could have a vast impact on our environment and our way of life. It's really hard to say how drastic the results of a few degrees may cause. But when that "unknown" is out there it's hard to just put our heads in the sand and hope that things may work out when if they don't this is the only earth we have. There's a chance everything will be fine but you'd better be right. And just to clarify, a global warming disaster probably wouldn't be that big of a deal to the earth it's already been through vast climate change and the extinction of dinosaurs, the humans on the other hand might take offense.

[Teal]

contrived. I know you don't like that it's 'become' a political issue, but it always HAS been a political issue. We are not going to destroy the earth, because God won't let us. Whether you believe in God or not is another matter entirely, but then again, I don't know that it is.

Now that is interesting. Are you really saying that man lacks the free will to destroy the plant? Or do you mean that it is through divine design that man will always move to save the planet? Or something else?

Any of the above seem to be completely untenable. The planet is of a fixed age and fixed lifespan based on its place in the universe. Man is clearly technologically capable of advancing that end date by nuking, polluting or poisoning the planet to the point of destroying life here.

I'm not saying we are doing so at this point, but seriously questioning how one can believe that God "won't let" humanity exercise its free will in this regard.

I don't mean in any way to be disrespectful, Teal. I've just never heard that particular argument before and find it a bit...dubious.

I know you don't. It's okay, and I can understand that you may have never heard that before. It's because it's a small form of what I like to call "Tealology". Meaning, a good deal of theology mixed with some of my own thought processes.

What I mean to say here is that, if you believe in the God that caused the Flood eons ago, one of the things he stated after that was that He would make a covenant never again to destroy the world by water. I think he's held up His end. There have been catastrophes, to be sure, but none on the level of wiping out all of mankind.

That being said, what makes me believe that most of all is that this is God's creation. He's an artist, and He has declared His creation to be either 'good' or 'very good'. He himself is in the business of restoration, not demolition. This is His, and to think that he'd give me the volition to just blow it up just seems...I dunno, to make Him kind of a bit player, which He's not, or sorta ambivalent about His creation, which he's also not.

The world as we know it will end on His timetable, not ours.

[Teal]

If people repeatedly pushed flawed science, or flawed evidence, then that's being a hack.

Never a truer word spoken...

[XXXIV]

Its pretty warm in this room right now...Is it man,nature or the beer?

[matthewk]

I have no use in the argument, because these same people were warning of a global ice age not 30 years ago...

Ahh yes, I forgot about that. This has been a topic of discussion on local talk radio this week, and I remember this being talked about. Funny how no one on the "sky is falling and it's all our fault" side cares to mention it.

I'm with Randy in that there is climate change going on, but I'm not ready to the majority of the blame on us. I'm sure that the industrialization of the human race has done harm to the planet, and we should do what we can to minimize that. I also believe that we'd have climate changes regardless of us even being here.

How many years of data do we have versus the number of years the Earth has been around? Is the planet just supposed to stop changing now that we are here?

[GTHobbes]

How many years of data do we have versus the number of years the Earth has been around? Is the planet just supposed to stop changing now that we are here?

In Gore's movie, they show graph data over the last 650,000 years for temperature and levels of carbon dioxide. In 650,000 years, the level of CO2 (according to the movie) never once exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm). Today, it looked like we were almost double that level, and the projected level 50 years from now was off the chart, literally.

[matthewk]

In Gore's movie, they show graph data over the last 650,000 years for temperature and levels of carbon dioxide. In 650,000 years, the level of CO2 (according to the movie) never once exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm). Today, it looked like we were almost double that level, and the projected level 50 years from now was off the chart, literally.

It's good to know that in addition to creating the internet, that Al Goer has been taking CO2 readings over the past 650,000 years. How can anyone tell with any sort of certainty what the CO2 levels were that long ago?

I just did some checking and: "As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight'. Not sure where they got almost 600ppm.

I have no doubt that our industrialization has had an effect. What is up for debate is just how drasti an effect we have had, and how much of the climate chanes are happening despite our being here.

Our effect is not limited to just oil consumption. PK made a joke about saving spotted owls, but if that is teh excuse it takes to preserve natural habitiats like forests, then I don't have a problem with it. At the rate we're tearing up land for development, we'll be left with nothing but parks for large areas of nature. The loss of natural habitats is a factor in rising CO2 levels just as much as consuming oil is. We know we have an effect on our environment, the sticking poitn seems to be the level of involvement.

Instead of all these groups arguing and accusing each other of lies and misconceptions, why can't we at least all agree that it's a good idea to be careful of how much we develop and how we use our energy? I don't need an army of scientists to tell me what (to me) is common sense.

[FatPitcher]

"We have to get rid of the medieval warming period"

I don't think global warming as a result of burning fossil fuels is really worth debating. Either we're screwed and can't do anything about it, or we're fine. You're not going to stop the emissions caused by running your computer and game consoles. John Travolta's not going to stop flying his 707 around. China and India are not going to slow down their industrialization and modernization. Any voluntary and agreed-to changes will be insignificant, and many entities will not even follow through with those.

What I don't get is why the environmentalists are even more opposed to nuclear power than fossil fuels. If global warming is really this threat that could destroy the planet, isn't nuclear power, which even in the most catastrophic scenario (Chernobyl) would not cause the entire planet to become uninhabitable, clearly preferable?

I think whoever said that the oil companies need to pay for stuff inadvertently stepped in the big reason for the debate -- it's all about who gets the power and the money, not about climate. Right now, the oil companies have a lot of both, and some people don't like that. That is why global warming is just one of many fronts on which they are being attacked by the same group of people. "Oh, they made lots of money! Give it to us now! (windfall tax). Oh, they're causing global warming! Take their money and put more restrictions on them!"

Still, I think there are collateral benefits to this crazy battle. One is that some people actually are trying to use less energy, and the free market is accomodating that desire with things like hybrid vehicles. Development of alternative energy sources that have gained viability as consumption (and therefore price) of energy has gone up.

[wco81]

They measure CO2 data over the past by drilling ice core samples at the poles.

We don't know for a fact that certain trees are several hundred years old because we can count the rings nor do we know that the age of fossils derived by carbon dating is completely accurate.

I believe also that the concern about cooling several decades ago had more to do with pollution, specifically the accumulation of particulate matter in the atmosphere blocking the sunlight.

If you don't want to hear it from Gore, you can check out an HBO Films Documentary, "Too hot not to handle." It presents figures and pictures of receding glaciers and such. HBO has made it available as a free video podcast and you can get it on iTunes.

Oh and you always get a "It's fricking cold here" in discussions about global warming. The idea doesn't preclude localized effects which involv cooling. For instance, one theory is that as the currents and atmosphere warm and more ice sheets fall into the Artic, there would be a cooling of currents which would come down to the Atlantic and actually block gulf currents, making England a cold place.

[seanmac31]

Or the last study in California that says that there are more young people dying of respiratory problems in the last five years that in more than were between 1900-1975, seventy five years!!!!.

I'm all for researching and being cautious, but this is a political issue now and there is no turning back. People will find the science or evidence to support whatever conclusion they want to draw.

Well, let's be more specific. It's a political issue in this country. The reality of global warming is not in dispute in any other first world country. But then again, neither is evolution.

[RandyM]

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... 8763c6&k=0

[RandyM]

Jared,

Can you poke some holes in Wegman's credentials for me? They seem pretty impressive, as does the analysis he did of the hockey stick:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/stor ... bed2f6&k=0