Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Famine]

Methane is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so all bets will be off, won't they?

But absolutely dwarfed by water vapour. Deadly dihydrogen monoxide indeed.

 

[Danoff]

But absolutely dwarfed by water vapour. Deadly dihydrogen monoxide indeed.

...which is funny because that's what hydrogen cars produce.

 

[Swift]

...which is funny because that's what hydrogen cars produce.

Blashphamy! You mean to tell me the eco-friendly cars actually increase the amount of NATURAL greenhouse gases. No Dan, you must be mistaken. I mean, how could so many uneducated celebrities be wrong?

 

[FoolKiller]

Duelling ice cores. Gee, I wonder why there's so much debate about what's actually happening?

That's kind of my point. You can't be conclusive when you can honestly sit and argue points back and forth.

Personally, I'll be keeping an eye on the permafrost in Siberia, Alaska and Norway. If all that tundra actually thaws out some summer, the methane that will be released will be measured in billions of tons. Methane is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so all bets will be off, won't they?

So, we should start cutting down the trees now?

 

[Zardoz]

Or is there a possibility that there is a cycle? Were those glaciers always there?

FK, Famine, Duke, Swift, and danoff:

Do you guys really think that all these things that are going on (once again: receding and thinning arctic ice, receding glaciers, thawing permafrost, slowing Gulf Stream, higher northern hemisphere surface and sea temperatures with 2005 setting a record) are all attributable to "natural cycles" even though they have all transpired during the second half of the 20th century?

I'm really having a hard time attributing this to coincidence, as all of you seem to be doing. We can debate fine points forever, and argue over data eternally, but all that really matters is what is actually going on, and I will never be able to write all this off to chance.

 

[Swift]

FK, Famine, Duke, Swift, and danoff:

Do you guys really think that all these things that are going on (once again: receding and thinning arctic ice, receding glaciers, thawing permafrost, slowing Gulf Stream, higher northern hemisphere surface and sea temperatures with 2005 setting a record) are all attributable to "natural cycles" even though they have all transpired during the second half of the 20th century?

I'm really having a hard time attributing this to coincidence, as all of you seem to be doing. We can debate fine points forever, and argue over data eternally, but all that really matters is what is actually going on, and I will never be able to write all this off to chance.

If you had records for about 300 years or so and could show that this is an extreme never seen before, then you'd have something. Just because something is a record high or low doesn't mean that it's a specific sign that the global climate is out of wack.

 

[Joey D]

Quick question:

When we stop using fossil fuels (we won't ever run out because we can't, the price will just be to high for it to be useful), but when we stop, will global warming stop as well? I mean I'm sure we will be burning something else, but I'm sure it'll be eco-friendly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Quick question:

When we stop using fossil fuels (we won't ever run out because we can't, the price will just be to high for it to be useful), but when we stop, will global warming stop as well? I mean I'm sure we will be burning something else, but I'm sure it'll be eco-friendly.

Chances are that whatever we switch to will turn out to be bad for some other reason. I'm guessing cancer. It seems to be a popular one.

 

[Joey D]

Chances are that whatever we switch to will turn out to be bad for some other reason. I'm guessing cancer. It seems to be a popular one.

Which for some reason reminded me of this...

But you are right, someone will find it bad.

 

[Zardoz]

...when we stop, will global warming stop as well?...

The conventional wisdom is that it won't, because the greenhouse gasses will persist for a long time, or so they say.

I suppose that's one of the reasons for Lovelock's extreme pessimism.

 

[kyle]

Chances are that whatever we switch to will turn out to be bad for some other reason. I'm guessing cancer. It seems to be a popular one.

Right now with the oil it's "Ahhh, it's global warming!" and "Those big oil compaines!", yet with hydrogen it sounds like it'll be "Ahhh, it's cancer!" and "Those big hydrogen compaines!"

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Let's just get it over with and connect everything to bikes and ride those and use perpetual energy instead.

 

[Duke]

FK, Famine, Duke, Swift, and danoff:

Do you guys really think that all these things that are going on (once again: receding and thinning arctic ice, receding glaciers, thawing permafrost, slowing Gulf Stream, higher northern hemisphere surface and sea temperatures with 2005 setting a record) are all attributable to "natural cycles" even though they have all transpired during the second half of the 20th century?

I'm really having a hard time attributing this to coincidence, as all of you seem to be doing. We can debate fine points forever, and argue over data eternally, but all that really matters is what is actually going on, and I will never be able to write all this off to chance.

The thing is this:

All these horrors, which conventional eco-wisdom holds to be happening dramatically, everywhere around the globe, are not necessarily supported by scientific evidence.

The truth is, the icecaps are not melting everywhere - nor is every glacier receeding - nor are atmospheric and surface temperatures going up everywhere around the globe. Understand this: no matter how hysterically the conventional eco-wisdom tries to say there is, there is no conclusive scientific proof that anything is happening on a global scale, beyond perhaps higher concentrations of CO2 and methane... neither of which can be conclusively proven to cause "global warming".

I'll really try to dig up a lot of the references on this - much of what "everybody knows" is happening on a gloabl scale is NOT conclusively supported by scientific evidence.

So what you refuse to believe is a "conicidence" may not even be happening at all - certainly not at the scale assumed by the eco movement.

 

[Zardoz]

...nor is every glacier receeding ...

Damned near every one, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_recession

Most of the GW effect is in the northern hemisphere, supposedly because of its great land mass. The conventional wisdom is that the South Pacific and Indian Oceans are moderating the effect in the south, but that it will eventually catch up down there, too.

 

[Kylehnat]

...perhaps higher concentrations of CO2 and methane... neither of which can be conclusively proven to cause "global warming".

Both of those species are certain to cause global warming. I think I posted the gory details of how these two molecules trap and re-radiate heat somewhere earlier on this thread. The question is not "will these molecules cause global warming?". The real question is whether the increase in atmospheric concentration of both of these (and other) molecules is a natural spike, which happens periodically throughout time, or whether it is induced by human activity. It's probably due to both, but we are unsure as to how the human contribution will affect global climates (if at all). I think that our activity will lead to global warming (if it hasn't already), as the amount of pollution we put into the atmosphere is not insignificant. I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios, but I think we need to seriously consider changing what we emit.

 

[Zardoz]

Has Fortune Magazine been taken over by tree-huggers?

"Cloudy with a chance of chaos"

"Now climate is changing again. Most scientists recognized the reality of global warming more than a decade ago; most also agree that humans play a role in the changes. The consensus on climate change has solidified to rival the medical consensus on the dangers of smoking--but in the matter of climate, public perception has yet to catch up. Like the tourists on Phuket beaches who stood and gazed at an oncoming tsunami because it was outside their experience, society is reacting to the coming wave of climate change without urgency."

The prototypical business publication running stories like THAT!?

What is this world coming to???

 

[Duke]

The consensus on climate change has solidified to rival the medical consensus on the dangers of smoking-[/i]

This is considerably overstating the issue. It is safe to say that the one thing there isn't is a smoking-hazard-grade consensus on current environmental changes and what is causing them, let alone the value of future predictions.

 

[Touring Mars]

It seems to me that the current available evidence is pointing in the direction of human activity rather than a natural cycle. That is the problem with evidence. No one single piece of evidence is of value in and of itself. Only with the slow and steady accumulation of mutually supporting evidence does one start to get a clearer picture of reality. The problem we are faced with is really a question of how to interpret the evidence we do have, and then we need to make a judgement call based on the strength of that evidence, whilst accumulating more evidence as we go along. But in the absence of conclusive evidence either for or against GW caused by human activity, it would be sheer folly to disregard the trends...

The cost of being wrong about this issue is potentially catastrophic. If those who believe that the current evidence points to global warming by human activity are wrong, but industrial emissions are cut anyway, then the consequences will not be any worse than they were going to be... no-one loses, apart from big businesses who are doing most of the polluting. But if it turns out that they are right, and the evidence (as it stands now) is ignored or (more likely) not judged to be substantial enough to justify action, then we are all in big trouble... (well, our grandkids will be anyway...) My point is, we can, in my view, only benefit by cutting emissions, so why not do it anyway?

 

[Danoff]

My point is, we can, in my view, only benefit by cutting emissions, so why not do it anyway?

Wow, if that were true there would be no reason not to cut emissions... but it isn't true. Cutting emissions will hurt - badly... especially if we do it stupidly (by just blaming it on gasoline and SUVs). It would mean the elimination of countless jobs as well as an increase in the overal expense of just about everything you can imagine. Think major recession. Think evaporation of massive amounts of money.

Plus, global warming might be exactly what we need to help survive the next ice age. It's possible that we really want to be increasing the temperature of the planet.

Until I see more convincing evidence that human being are a major factor in raising the temperature of the Earth, I'll hold the opinion that we can only hurt ourselves by cutting emissions.

 

[Swift]

Until I see more convincing evidence that human being are a major factor in raising the temperature of the Earth, I'll hold the opinion that we can only hurt ourselves by cutting emissions.

I think that's a very strong statement. I think reducing emmissions makes sense from a sheer pollution and air quality perspective. But drastically cutting emissions will have the effects that Danonff described.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wow, if that were true there would be no reason not to cut emissions... but it isn't true. Cutting emissions will hurt - badly... especially if we do it stupidly (by just blaming it on gasoline and SUVs). It would mean the elimination of countless jobs as well as an increase in the overal expense of just about everything you can imagine. Think major recession. Think evaporation of massive amounts of money.

Plus, global warming might be exactly what we need to help survive the next ice age. It's possible that we really want to be increasing the temperature of the planet.

Until I see more convincing evidence that human being are a major factor in raising the temperature of the Earth, I'll hold the opinion that we can only hurt ourselves by cutting emissions.

I think the suggestion that we should not cut emissions at all would be extremely unwise, and (depending on your view point), irresponsible. I agree that cutting emissions could potentially result in many negative social and economic outcomes, but only if the cuts themselves were done in an off-hand and irrational or irresponsible manner - done wisely and even-handedly, the negative impact could easily be minimised... I really meant that cutting CO2 emissions would have no negative impact on the climate...

Suggesting that we can somehow fine-tune our CO2 emissions to help avert the next ice-age is pretty unrealistic... it also suggests that you agree with the notion that we even can, which in turn implies that you agree that human activity has an effect on global temperature... There will be no point in studying how to use our CO2 emissions like a global thermostat if we are all under water though...

 

[Famine]

In reference to personal emissions (no, not THAT kind) then cutting them is a good idea, if only monetarily...

If I pootle along in 5th gear my car is more efficient, so puts out less pollutants. AND it uses less fuel and wears the engine/gearbox/clutch/brakes/tyres less, so I save money. Hurrah!

If I have a class B fridge as opposed to a class F then it uses less electricity, so less pollution is zinged out of the power station. And I save money. Hurrah!


Whether or not it's better for the planet or not... Don't know, don't care. All I know is that I save money. But if the best product is the class F fridge, and the best way of driving from point A to point B is "spirited" then you'd best believe that's what I'm going to do.

 

[Danoff]

I think the suggestion that we should not cut emissions at all would be extremely unwise, and (depending on your view point), irresponsible.

Calling it irresponsible assumes that man is responsible for global warming - something that has not been established. I'd call it irresponsible too if I were convinced of that.

I agree that cutting emissions could potentially result in many negative social and economic outcomes, but only if the cuts themselves were done in an off-hand and irrational or irresponsible manner - done wisely and even-handedly, the negative impact could easily be minimised... I really meant that cutting CO2 emissions would have no negative impact on the climate...

I don't think that has been established either. We don't know the extent to which our C02 emissions impact the climate. If (that is an if) our emissions have a major impact, we might want to consider using them to avoid the next ice age (and other more short-term potentially beneficial impacts of greater C02 quantities). If they have little impact then we shouldn't bother cutting them.

...and what exactly is your plan to minimize economic damage?

Suggesting that we can somehow fine-tune our CO2 emissions to help avert the next ice-age is pretty unrealistic... it also suggests that you agree with the notion that we even can, which in turn implies that you agree that human activity has an effect on global temperature...

Not really. I was coming from the point of view of the unknown. As I said above, we simply don't know how much our emissions impact the planet. If it turns out that we have a big effect, we might need that tool later.

I think that's a very strong statement. I think reducing emmissions makes sense from a sheer pollution and air quality perspective. But drastically cutting emissions will have the effects that Danonff described.

That's not really what I was talking about. I agree that locally emissions can be a problem - I was approaching this from a global perspective. Local air quality issues can have impacts on local economies - but would not be so likely to impact the country or the world economically.

 

[Touring Mars]

Calling it irresponsible assumes that man is responsible for global warming - something that has not been established. I'd call it irresponsible too if I were convinced of that.

Yes, but you could also think of it as erring on the side of caution. Assuming anthropogenic global warming is real, then cutting emissions is the only responsible action to take. But equally, merely assuming that we are not responsible is not a good enough safe guard in my book.

We don't know the extent to which our C02 emissions impact the climate. If (that is an if) our emissions have a major impact, we might want to consider using them to avoid the next ice age (and other more short-term potentially beneficial impacts of greater C02 quantities). If they have little impact then we shouldn't bother cutting them.

Actually we do know the extent to which greenhouse gases have contributed to climate change - the contention is that human activity is responsible. In the absence of other causative factors, there does exist a correlation between greenhouse gas output and increasing global temperature...

...and what exactly is your plan to minimize economic damage?

Damned if I know ... but compared to the prospect of what irreversible damage to the economy the effects of catastrophic global warming could do, short-term economic upheaval seems to be the lesser of two evils...

. If it turns out that we have a big effect, we might need that tool later.

The expression, 'too little too late' springs to mind. The only way to eliminate greenhouse gases 'from our enquiries' so-to-speak, is to test what effect cutting their emission has... so far, we have found no evidence to refute the charge that greenhouse gases (or should I say, additional greenhouse gas output from human activity) is not the main causative factor in global warming... it's almost the opposite of a court of law here... instead of 'innocent until proven guilty', we should be considering this issue as 'guilty until proven innocent'... the gamble of looking at it the other way is just not worth it in my view...

Whether or not it's better for the planet or not... Don't know, don't care.

Really? The "Whether or not" bit has me a bit worried... So even if you were presented with enough evidence to convince you that human activity is causing global warming, you still wouldn't sanction emission cuts?? I agree with the fact that certain human activities, like driving cars, has minimal impact - but that's not really what I'm on about - I'm more concerned about the major source of human pollution - i.e. industry - surely, if you became convinced of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming (and that's possibly a big if), you'd want to do something about it?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, but you could also think of it as erring on the side of caution. Assuming anthropogenic global warming is real, then cutting emissions is the only responsible action to take. But equally, merely assuming that we are not responsible is not a good enough safe guard in my book.

I'm not assuming we're not responsible... as I've said many times. We might be responsible. We just don't know yet. I don't see it as erring on the side of caution to stifle our economies on the possibility that we might be causing global warming and that global warming would be bad and the possibility that that economic damage would actually result in a benefit to the environment. I see that as self-destruction on a gamble. If we're going to do something about this, we need to make absolutely sure that we're doing the right thing. People's livelihoods are on the line here. I don't see a reason to jump to hasty conclusions.

Actually we do know the extent to which greenhouse gases have contributed to climate change

I disagree. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that we fully understand our climate and the factors invovled. But I didn't claim that we didn't know the extent to which greenhouse gasses have contributed to climate changed (though I am claiming that now) - I calimed that we didn't know the extent to which OUR emissions have contributed to it.

In the absence of other causative factors, there does exist a correlation between greenhouse gas output and increasing global temperature...

As Duke pointed out the "increasing global temperatures" is debatable. Also, we're not in an environment devoid of other "causative factors".

Damned if I know ... but compared to the prospect of what irreversible damage to the economy the effects of catastrophic global warming could do, short-term economic upheaval seems to be the lesser of two evils...

Agreed. Compared to catestrophic global warming just about anything seems like a lesser of the two evils... but we don't know that that is an evil we face.

so far, we have found no evidence to refute the charge that greenhouse gases (or should I say, additional greenhouse gas output from human activity) is not the main causative factor in global warming... it's almost the opposite of a court of law here... instead of 'innocent until proven guilty', we should be considering this issue as 'guilty until proven innocent'... the gamble of looking at it the other way is just not worth it in my view...

It's at LEAST as much of a gamble to look at it your way. You're basically choosing to cause harm to take steps you THINK MIGHT avoid potential future harm. You're not sure that there is a future harm, and you're not sure that the steps that you'll take will avoid them. All you're certain of is that these steps will cause harm right now.

 

[Touring Mars]

Indeed, it would be a grave mistake to make rash decisions based on flimsy evidence, but as more and stronger evidence comes in, and significantly, more and more alternatives to the theory of anthropogenic global warming are rejected, the evidence as it stands now is already quite compelling. As Zardoz has referred to already, the IPCC report in 2001 strongly suggests that anthropogenic global warming theory has a great deal of credibility... the observed rise in global temperature simply does not have any more plausible explanation than as the result of human activity yet... and maybe it will never have...

 

[Zardoz]

...It is safe to say that the one thing there isn't is a smoking-hazard-grade consensus on current environmental changes and what is causing them, let alone the value of future predictions.

Maybe not, Duke. The "no consensus" view may, in fact, be the biggest myth of all:

"Climate change: Menace or myth?"

Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale

For the true hard-liners, of course, the scientific consensus must, by definition, be wrong. As far as they are concerned the thousands of scientists behind the IPCC models have either been seduced by their own doom-laden narrative or are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy. They say we are faced with what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm problem".

"Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number," says climatologist Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a leading proponent of this view. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, Michaels says, and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right, he adds.

But even if you accept this sceptical view of how science is done, it doesn't mean the orthodoxy is always wrong. We know for sure that human activity is influencing the global environment, even if we don't know by how much. We might still get away with it: the sceptics could be right, and the majority of the world's climate scientists wrong. It would be a lucky break. But how lucky do you feel?


Another blurb about the "leading skeptics":

Meet the global warming skeptics


Until lately, I knew nothing about ExxonMobil's "action plan". Now I'm starting to wonder: Is the myth of "uncertainty" and "lack of scientific consensus" that so many appear to be buying into actually just proof of how effective ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign has really been?

 

[Danoff]

"Climate change: Menace or myth?"
Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists.

..and what degree would that be. I'm not sure I'd find it as surprising as the author.

As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Can we have some numbers?

Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale

The skeptics accept warming - but do they accept man-made warming? Do they accept the warming in regions or globally?

"Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number," says climatologist Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a leading proponent of this view. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, Michaels says, and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right, he adds.

But even if you accept this sceptical view of how science is done, it doesn't mean the orthodoxy is always wrong. We know for sure that human activity is influencing the global environment, even if we don't know by how much. We might still get away with it: the sceptics could be right, and the majority of the world's climate scientists wrong. It would be a lucky break. But how lucky do you feel?

It isn't about luck, it's about what's right. And I note that this caption doesn't refute that money is often given to people who will research gloom and doom scenarios.

This blurb here didn't help me much.

 

[Danoff]

Another blurb about the "leading skeptics":

Meet the global warming skeptics

This is a shameful article. To claim that these people are biased simply because they accept funding from oil companies is practically slander. It's also a logical fallacy and not very convincing.

 

[Famine]

Really? The "Whether or not" bit has me a bit worried... So even if you were presented with enough evidence to convince you that human activity is causing global warming, you still wouldn't sanction emission cuts?? I agree with the fact that certain human activities, like driving cars, has minimal impact - but that's not really what I'm on about - I'm more concerned about the major source of human pollution - i.e. industry - surely, if you became convinced of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming (and that's possibly a big if), you'd want to do something about it?

I made absolutely no reference to industrial emissions in my post.

Another blurb about the "leading skeptics":

Meet the global warming skeptics

David Bellamy? Meet the face of corporate evil:

 

[Zardoz]

...a logical fallacy...

Please elaborate on that.