Global Warming - The New Socialism

[leo-rcc]

As far as where the debate was (and is), it is in scientific journals and peer reviewed articles. The findings of the scientists both proponents and skeptics are what gives the IPCC the material to produce their assessment reports. This report got some criticism, but only very few claiming the findings wrong, more criticism was given that the threat was not emphasized enough.

Obviously, I can't post it all here. If you're interested, you'll find a wealth of knowledge available on the internet regarding the topic.

Oh please, that doesn say anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324093.stm

LORD REES, PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

This report makes it clear, more convincingly than ever before, that human actions are writ large on the changes we are seeing, and will see, to our climate.

The IPCC strongly emphasises that substantial climate change is inevitable, and we will have to adapt to this.

This should compel all of us - world leaders, businesses and individuals - towards action rather than the paralysis of fear.

We need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

Those who would claim otherwise can no longer use science as a basis for their argument.

PROFESSOR MIKE HULME, DIRECTOR, TYNDALL CENTRE

This report confirms what scientists have suspected for more than a decade - humans are now driving the changes we are seeing in the world's climate and that over the coming decades we will introduce new climate-related risks to many parts of the world.

For the UK, the existing recommended guidelines for climate change planning remain consistent with this new IPCC report: a likely annual warming of between 2C and 3.5C (3.6-6.3F) by the 2080s; a rise is sea-level of between 10 and 70cm; more heatwaves; more heavy winter rain; and less wintry weather.

It remains very unlikely that the Gulf Stream will be radically altered this century.

PROFESSOR BOB SPICER, CENTRE FOR EARTH, PLANETARY SPACE AND ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH, OPEN UNIVERSITY

This is the clearest view of the future that humankind has ever had. It is necessarily conservative, is based on sound science, and has been careful to avoid wild speculation.

There are still major uncertainties surrounding such things as the melting of ice caps.

Nevertheless, the predictions for sea level rise in the report, and the melting already in train because of emissions of greenhouse gases that have already taken place, guarantee a future where social and economic issues of food production, water availability and climate driven migration are things we have to begin to manage now.

DR DAVE REAY, SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

The sheer number and complexity of predictive climate models developed since the last assessment report is enough to make one's head spin.

For those hoping for good news, this report will make painful reading. Avoiding 2C (3.6F) of post-industrial warming looks harder than ever.

With caveats and uncertainties, scenarios and forcings, the report could make a dry old read, but between its conservatively worded lines hangs the very future of human civilization.

IAN ARBON, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY GROUP, INSTITUTE OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

There is now virtually no doubt that climate change is directly linked to mankind's profligate consumption of energy.

This issue cannot possibly be addressed by technology alone but requires lifestyle change.

There is now little doubt that both flooding and drought will increase faster than previously thought.

This means that our island's coastal defences will have to be significantly strengthened and that the water supply crisis in south-east England will become very much worse.

IAN FELLS, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENERGY CONVERSION, NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY

It is now a matter of extreme urgency that we cut back on burning fossil fuels.

Decisions have to be made immediately to extend nuclear new build as well as renewables.

The message from IPCC is stark. Indeed, we are almost certainly past the "tipping point" and will be hard put to it to hold carbon dioxide emissions to the top limit of 550 parts per million (ppm) unless low carbon technologies are introduced as a matter of extreme urgency.

And this was just from one article about scientists responding to the IPCC report.

You don't really want me to post a list of articles of all scientists agreeing with the findings do you? The thing is, scientist argue about anything at any time. But when scientist see the data only very few will still cling to the anti climate change idea.

The global warming conspiracy theory is dead. After the 4th IPCC assessment there are no more international scientific institutes refuting the evidence presented. The only resistance to the findings are from a few individual scientists.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Also, what I found interesting was a report (can't remember where) the turn around seen from the major corporates anti-GW's ... they were all anti-GW (no it's not happening, we don't need to be careful ... no it's not happening, we don't need to be careful ... no it's not happening, we don't need to be careful ... ) and then it effectively became too late as GW apparently became irreversible (no it's not happening, we don't need to be careful ... no it's not happening, we don't need to be careful ... oh ... it's too late now, so we don't need to be careful anymore ... it's too late now, so we don't need to be careful anymore ... it's too late now, so we don't need to be careful anymore ... )

Dunno if that's true or not but it's funny in a kind of ironic way.

Kyu

[athoughtfulman]

Obviously, I can't post it all here. If you're interested, you'll find a wealth of knowledge available on the internet regarding the topic.

Oh please, that doesn say anything.

No worries, I'll just grab some info then. What exactly is a reputable source? Just wondering, so I make sure I post things which are reputable, not potential lies.

Here's one attempt (forgive me if any of them isn't reputable; I'm not a scientist).

"The debate never was over, and for the mainstream press to have ever acceded to the notion that debate was over, or to condone marginalizing anyone who continued to debate, is one of the most eggregious examples of media bias in history.
One should think that given what is at stake - the reorganization of our entire political and economic systems - debate would be welcomed. One would think those who are calling for debate and discussion would be heralded as voices of moderation and reason, instead of branded as ideological fanatics and corporate shills. The fact that debate is supposedly “over” regarding something for which the remedy is so fundamentally and abruptly transformative should concern anyone who claims to care about human rights, individual freedoms, free enterprise, and an open society."
Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.
The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC.
The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK) The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that “all scientists agree” about man-made global warming."
http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/03/15/...e-goes-on/

I'm not sure whether you already know this or not, but here it is anyway. Evidence that the debate about climate science is far from finished. However, many of GW proponents, think otherwise.

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...ml?s=ic%20

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...223DFE2CC3

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_...935586_ITM

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...05_pf.html

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus."
http://www.upi.com/International_Intelli...over/6480/

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...4E3F6E0E2D
____________________________________________________________

"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand, the Philippines and France, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile"."

And some quotes from scientists:

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote.

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

And see how 400 sceptical scientists outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policy-Makers

"The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)"

Looking for peer-reviewed scientific papers?

"A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...nateReport (it should be noticed that this is a government website)


If I avoid the bias of the mainstream media, and look at science, it seems the majority of people I can find are sceptics, not supporters. I hope I've done this right, and haven't posted anything worthless, let me know if I have and what you think of the above.

[lilphil1989]

Before I can fully accept the possibility of Man Made global warming there are a few inconvenient facts that first need to be cleared up..

The main two that spring to mind are these..

Firstly, as I understand it, Humanity is responsible for emitting about 6 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

This sounds like a huge amount but when you consider that normal volcanic activity is responsible for approx 150 gigatonnes then it seems that we have a very long way to go to even come close to matching nature.

Secondly, the fact that the records for the Greenland ice sheet over the past hundred thousand years or so consistently show that it is always the temperature that rises first and then some time later, sometimes years, the CO2 starts to rise as well..

I would have though then that if CO2 was responsible for global warming it should be the other way around.

The idea is of a carbon cycle whereby carbon dioxide is transferred between several resevoirs (i.e. atmosphere, biomass, oceans).
Ice core data shows that for several thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric carbon dioxide was constant at 280±10ppm (parts per million) [1] , and therefore the exchange between resevoirs was constant.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen to ~377ppm.

To me this is pretty good evidence that we are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide substantially.

To explain how an output that is ~5% of that output by volcanic activities (according to your figures of 6 and 150 GT) I came up with the following analogy:

Imagine a waste water processing plant that can process 1000L of waste pumped into it per day.
Now imagine that it does process at full capacity (that is, same amount going in as going out; this represents the pre-industrial equilibrium between resevoirs).

There are four sources of waste, each contributing 250L of waste per day.
Imagine one of these is a company that has found a way to increase their production, and the new method increases their daily waste output by 1L/day.
They think "well, the extra 1L we want to pump to the processing station is negligible copmpared to the 1000 it already processes".

This maybe true, but the waste is still coming in faster than it can be processed, the equilibrium has been disturbed, so there must be a build up somewhere.


As for your second incovenience, I thought the error bars on the data made it impossible to say whether temperature rises or atmos. CO2 increases came first :S
Could you give a link to the data/paper you're referring to?



I think the evidence for "man-made" global warming is reasonable and says it is feasible, and the relevant physics that we currently understood well provide a good theoretical basis.

However, the earth's atmosphere (in terms of weather, temperature, radiative forcing etc) is an extremely complex system and the only way to really make any predictions is to bang your model onto a supercomputer. Current models are inaccurate at best, there need to be a lot of adjustments and refinements made before we understand the earth's climate well.


What do people think of a kind of environmental Pascal's wager?





[1] Climate change 2001, the scientific basis (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

[athoughtfulman]

What do people think of a kind of environmental Pascal's wager?

Depends what you're saying. That we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing that man the cause of global warming? But what if instead of having everything to gain, we have everything to lose? Suppose that instead our models are wrong, that the earth is cooling instead of warming yet here we sit preparing for warming. The amount of money invested in global warming would be wasted, and we would be ill prepared.

No my friend, I think there is much to lose for either side. But of course, as always, it depends who you listen to.

I don't believe the earth warming is anything to worry about. CO2 is plant food, hence we will go to greater prosperity and health should the earth warm. An interesting site about CO2 is: http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

[lilphil1989]

Suppose that instead our models are wrong, that the earth is cooling instead of warming yet here we sit preparing for warming. The amount of money invested in global warming would be wasted, and we would be ill prepared.
I don't believe the earth warming is anything to worry about. CO2 is plant food, hence we will go to greater prosperity and health should the earth warm. An interesting site about CO2 is: http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

In my opinion there's more to gain by believing that it is man-made on reasonable (not conclusive though) evidence, and taking precautions, than there is to lose if we're wrong. I see what you mean about wasted investment though.



Climate models are not used to predict whether or not the earth is warming now. That can be directly observed. The earth is warming (by that, I mean the global average surface temperature is increasing), the debate is whether or not that's caused by humanity or whether it would have happened anyway.

Climate models are used to predict how the climate will react to induced changes (i.e. rainfall, storm frequency, temperature). It's just such a complex system, and incredibly difficult to describe.


I guess in a hundred years or so, when the fossil fuel reserves are depleted, there won't be much of a choice about cutting carbon dioxide emissions


EDIT: I found nothing on that website but broad, sweeping statements with no scientific grounding. I find the study of complex systems like this intriguing. I've looked for science-based explanations from those who refute man-made global warming, but can't seem to find anything further than hand-waving about solar cycles. Thoughtful, you seem to have done much more research than me into man-made global warming "debunking", if you could point me in the direction of some of the scientific reasoning of skeptics I'd be grateful.

[athoughtfulman]

The earth is warming (by that, I mean the global average surface temperature is increasing), the debate is whether or not that's caused by humanity or whether it would have happened anyway.

Like you said it's not conclusive, so why bother? But then again, if it real, then we better start doing something quick.

It's a hard call, when there seems to be a lot to lose on both sides of the argument.

Just to point something out though, you said global average surface temperature is increasing. I think it is. But that's the whole problem. Global warming and the idea that the earth is warming is based on surface temps, but are these even accurate? With the amount of pollution, urban hubs and things like clouds increasing our surface temperature, it can hardly be the right thing to look at. We have too much influence on it, therefore it can look like the temp is rising when it is in fact not changing or even decreasing.

Have seen articles about this before, but couldn't find any right now, will look into it. But I remember the argument was that we should be looking at the overall temps of the atmosphere as read by satellites which are unaffected by heat sinks like cities.

I hope this sounds somewhat intelligible and not some pile of garble. I'll find more info soon.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I hope this sounds somewhat intelligible and not some pile of garble. I'll find more info soon.

Not trying to be funny Thoughtful but it seems to me that you have already made up your mind and that your entire effort in this context is geared towards proving what you believe. To my mind that isn't rational and, I'm really not being funny here, is EXACTLY what theists do in support of their chosen POV.

Kyu

[lilphil1989]

Like you said it's not conclusive, so why bother? But then again, if it real, then we better start doing something quick.

It's a hard call, when there seems to be a lot to lose on both sides of the argument.

Just to point something out though, you said global average surface temperature is increasing. I think it is. But that's the whole problem. Global warming and the idea that the earth is warming is based on surface temps, but are these even accurate? With the amount of pollution, urban hubs and things like clouds increasing our surface temperature, it can hardly be the right thing to look at. We have too much influence on it, therefore it can look like the temp is rising when it is in fact not changing or even decreasing.

Have seen articles about this before, but couldn't find any right now, will look into it. But I remember the argument was that we should be looking at the overall temps of the atmosphere as read by satellites which are unaffected by heat sinks like cities.

I hope this sounds somewhat intelligible and not some pile of garble. I'll find more info soon.

Why bother? Because we might be absolutely fucking up our planet. I think that's quite an important thing to try to figure out.


But the "temperature" read by a satellite is a reading of the blackbody radiation of the earth. I don't know how much physics you know so i'll provide a simple analogy:


Imagine you want to measure the temperature of a hot iron bar. There are two main ways to do it:
1) stick a thermometer on the bar

2) use a photometer to measure the blackbody radiation of the bar. All objects above 0K (so, everything! :p ) radiates a spectrum, the peak of which is dependant on the objects temperature. So measure the wavelength peak of outcoming radiation and use Wien's displacement law to calculate the temperature.

These two methods give the same result.

Ok, now imagine you wrap the iron bar in some kind of semi-transparent plastic, that stops radiation at certain wavelengths (this is exactly what the earth's atmosphere does, and is the way it retains heat). You can still put the thermometer inside the plastic and measure the surface temperature of the bar, or you could try to fit a blackbody to an emission spectrum with lots of absorption, like this.
You'll (hopefully, assuming the absorption doesnt distort your spectrum too much) get the same result, but that with the thermometer gives the more accurate result.

There's no physical reason they would give different results, unless, as I mentioned before, your spectrum is so distorted by absorption that you can't fit a blackbody spectrum to it.

Your argument is that cities kick out more heat than the surrounding undeveloped land, but that would show up on the spectrum taken from space, and obviously would on thermometer measurements at the surface, so there's no difference.
The satellite measurement would also be measuring surface temperature, just in a different, and less accurate, way.


I hope this makes sense, I tend to write in a somewhat disjointed way sometimes, call me out if I've said something that doen't make sense :p

[athoughtfulman]

I hope this sounds somewhat intelligible and not some pile of garble. I'll find more info soon.

Not trying to be funny Thoughtful but it seems to me that you have already made up your mind and that your entire effort in this context is geared towards proving what you believe. To my mind that isn't rational and, I'm really not being funny here, is EXACTLY what theists do in support of their chosen POV.

Kyu

That's fair Kyuu - I'm undecided until we have more evidence.

And LilPhil, hadn't thought of it like that. I'm no scientist so just trying to find my way among the big boys I'll look into it. Another question though, unless the thermometres were all out in the country, away from the cities, then we would get distorted temps wouldn't we? Or is there something they do to correct it?