Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

Follow the money.

Taking 2013, the worldwide revenue of the oil & gas industry amounted to $1,256,941 million US dollars. If climate scientists were only concerned about their own employment & career opportunities they could find funding (as some do) working for Big Oil. There would be vast sums of money available for research for climate scientists willing to work as a mouthpiece for the fossil fuels industry.

Ok, so you have some climate scientists that find funding in Big Oil, and some finding funding in Big Climate. What's the point? Which one should we trust? The ones working for Big Oil need not fear for their livelihood because they can work for Big Climate. The ones working for Big Climate need not fear for their livelihood because they can work for Big Oil.

Big Oil is bigger, sure, but Big Oil is also not entirely based on this one issue. They make money from a variety of technologies and resource needs. Big Climate, on the otherhand, gets funding from exactly one source and is entirely beholden to that source. There is absolutely ZERO reason for Big Climate to back a study that says climate change may not be a problem.

So once again, why are we trusting one source over the other?

The consensus on climate change was not reached

...should probably stop you right there. There is no consensus on just about any aspect of climate change. Politicians making statements to the opposite to further their agenda doesn't change that. I worked for an institution that is at the forefront of climate research. I spoke with these people over lunch and attended lectures by the leading scientists at the time who explained their models in great detail. I also have years of experience in developing models to fit statistical data just like they do. There is no consensus. Some of them think that the sun's influence on global temperature is drastically understated (naturally that was explained to me by someone who spent most of his career studying the sun), some of them thing clouds have a net positive effect on temperature, some of them think they have a net negative effect. Some of them aren't sure.

Over and over we pretend that this extremely young field of study which is still making HUGE changes to the underlying assumptions and finding natural phenomenon that make their previous statistics look ridiculous, who can't go more than 2 years without throwing out all of their models for new ones to fit the new data, is somehow settled and well known the way centuries of study in evolution is. It's not, and we need to give these hardworking scientists some time and room to develop their understanding using all of their shiny new tools and funding before we announce that it's settled. Jumping to the conclusion that everything is settled and the book is closed belittles the size of the problem that the field of study is focused on, and ignores how science works - which is often a back-and-forth of errors for decades.

 

[Touring Mars]

There's a logical inconsistency with the suggestion that 'big climate science' is biased... Big Oil is about making profit, Big Science is about establishing facts. Being biased in favour of one's own agenda is not inconsistent with the raison d'etre of Big Oil, but it is entirely inconsistent with the way science and the scientific method works. That is not to say bias doesn't occur - it definitely does - but scientists are trained and fundamentally motivated to correct for it; Big Oil is the exact opposite. Furthermore, most 'big climate' science is publicly funded yet there is little to no evidence that those doing the funding have any direct or ideological links to those doing the research - again, big oil is the exact opposite. It is something of a grand generalisation to think that those whose livelihoods depend on scientific research are necessarily biased or somehow influence the outcome of their research for the reason described above... places such as the CRU, the Met Office or NASA in the USA are typically populated by extremely talented and diligent scientists who, while well rewarded for their work, are principally motivated by the advancement of knowledge and not profit - again, Big Oil is the exact opposite. But the key point is that the scientific underpinnings of 'Big Climate' doesn't depend on the honesty and integrity of its practitioners, but on the rigor of the scientific method and the peer-review process.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There's a logical inconsistency with the suggestion that 'big climate science' is biased... Big Oil is about making profit, Big Science is about establishing facts.

Sounds like someone is working for Big Reasoning.

GET HIM!

 

[squadops]

If big science guys create a market for super green products than guys just like the big oil guys will create products that cater(that probably don't make a difference), regardless if the earth becomes an oven or not.

Even if man makes global warming, are we not natural? The earth will be here after we are gone and nature will continue to take it's course so, are we trying to preserve ourselves and future or simply searching for profit.

It's also always important to consider the political power all the hype generates.

 

[Dotini]

Moderate to severe cooling is predicted over the next 30 years.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

 

[Touring Mars]

Bit of an old article that - it was published in 2008.

I'm not understanding the 'minute' increase in CO2 part... atmospheric CO2 levels have peaked at ~280 ppm over the last several hundred thousand years... yet, since 1977, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 333 ppm to 400 ppm - an increase of 20% in less than 40 years, and now stand at a level 42% higher than the 280 ppm peak level that hasn't been breached for almost a million years (and probably alot longer than that). Meanwhile, global temperature anomalies continue to rise: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Also, a bit about the author: http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

 

[Spurgy 777]

Bit of an old article that - it was published in 2008.

I'm not understanding the 'minute' increase in CO2 part... atmospheric CO2 levels have peaked at ~280 ppm over the last several hundred thousand years... yet, since 1977, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 333 ppm to 400 ppm - an increase of 20% in less than 40 years, and now stand at a level 42% higher than the 280 ppm peak level that hasn't been breached for almost a million years (and probably alot longer than that). Meanwhile, global temperature anomalies continue to rise: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Also, a bit about the author: http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

Going by your numbers, the 0.008% increase in CO2 is a percentage of the entire atmosphere, not of the original CO2 levels.

400ppm-333ppm is almost 80ppm which is 0.008%, so looks like he's either bad at maths, or trying to make the number look small (or both)

 

[Dotini]

Contrarians to the global warming scenario may be right for the wrong reasons.

IMO, global warming, should it further develop, would be less a problem than global cooling, which could drastically affect food production.

Also IMO, solar cycles are not well enough understood to enable accurate prediction, and the current rapid decline in Earth's magnetic field strength, possibly related to solar cycles, is another wild card which could, if continued, make for a cooling scenario.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Err, guys, I think you are missing the anthropogenic part when it comes to the CO2 number.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well... atmospheric CO2 levels never rose above 280 ppm in the last million years or so, staying within the range of 180-280 ppm during the entire period that Homo sapiens have existed, but have risen to 400 ppm since the industrial revolution and 70 ppm since 1977 - with no other plausible explanation other than human activity as the reason behind that rise.

 

[Danoff]

There's a logical inconsistency with the suggestion that 'big climate science' is biased... Big Oil is about making profit, Big Science is about establishing facts. Being biased in favour of one's own agenda is not inconsistent with the raison d'etre of Big Oil, but it is entirely inconsistent with the way science and the scientific method works. That is not to say bias doesn't occur - it definitely does - but scientists are trained and fundamentally motivated to correct for it; Big Oil is the exact opposite. Furthermore, most 'big climate' science is publicly funded yet there is little to no evidence that those doing the funding have any direct or ideological links to those doing the research - again, big oil is the exact opposite. It is something of a grand generalisation to think that those whose livelihoods depend on scientific research are necessarily biased or somehow influence the outcome of their research for the reason described above... places such as the CRU, the Met Office or NASA in the USA are typically populated by extremely talented and diligent scientists who, while well rewarded for their work, are principally motivated by the advancement of knowledge and not profit - again, Big Oil is the exact opposite. But the key point is that the scientific underpinnings of 'Big Climate' doesn't depend on the honesty and integrity of its practitioners, but on the rigor of the scientific method and the peer-review process.

I think you're sweeping a bit under the rug here. Everyone who is publicly funded to investigate the climate change situation knows quite well that the reason they have funding, and the reason they'll continue to have funding, is because there is a perceived threat. As long as that perception continues to exist, they'll continue to have funding. Each journal article that suggests perhaps things aren't as bad as previously reported directly impacts their funding. Senators are significantly less likely to cough up dough if their constituents are hearing mixed messages, or aren't in a state of panic.

To suggest that scientists on one side whose funding can be yanked the moment they contradict the crisis message are somehow less motivated to keep their jobs than the scientists on the other side whose funding can be yanked the moment they contradict the anti-crisis message I think is a bit idealistic. Both big oil and big climate have an agenda to push, and both of them will filter their results to push that agenda so that they can continue to get funding. I understand that we're talking about NASA employees with lots of talent and who are very diligent and hard-working. They still know where their money comes from.

To a certain extent, scientists will pick the side that they feel is right to begin with, so they're biased the moment they walk in the door. It's a good thing we've got skeptics out there to challenge the big climate message, because that's the sort of rigor that the scientific method requires in order to function.

 

[Touring Mars]

To a certain extent, scientists will pick the side that they feel is right to begin with, so they're biased the moment they walk in the door. It's a good thing we've got skeptics out there to challenge the big climate message, because that's the sort of rigor that the scientific method requires in order to function.

Quite, but that is my point - scientists can be biased to the point of being incorrect, but they will be found out because of the fact that their data is open to scrutiny and ultimately the truth will out. That's the way science operates whether they like it or not, and it doesn't just apply to individuals, but to the entire scientific community. The peer-review process is almost by definition skeptical, and science is arguably the best example of a self-correcting mechanism.

My only concern in this whole debate is establishing the truth, and I firmly believe that scientific study is the only method by which to address the question. As such, I have a great deal of suspicion of those who fund and are funded by groups whose interests lie elsewhere, be it economic, political or whatever. At least those actually doing real science can be held to account via the scientific method and peer-review process - the same cannot be said for those who spend millions on deliberate obfuscation and misinformation.

 

[Danoff]

Quite, but that is my point - scientists can be biased to the point of being incorrect, but they will be found out because of the fact that their data is open to scrutiny and ultimately the truth will out. That's the way science operates whether they like it or not, and it doesn't just apply to individuals, but to the entire scientific community. The peer-review process is almost by definition skeptical, and science is arguably the best example of a self-correcting mechanism.

My only concern in this whole debate is establishing the truth, and I firmly believe that scientific study is the only method by which to address the question. As such, I have a great deal of suspicion of those who fund and are funded by groups whose interests lie elsewhere, be it economic, political or whatever. At least those actually doing real science can be held to account via the scientific method and peer-review process - the same cannot be said for those who spend millions on deliberate obfuscation and misinformation.

I think it's not that you and I see the big oil scientists so differently. I fully recognize that there is a lot of pseudo-science and hidden agendas. I think where the real disagreement is that you see the other side as more noble and pure than I do. Who knows, you could be right, but I have faith in humanity to be biased and self-serving without really even knowing they're doing it.

 

[Imari]

Bit of an old article that - it was published in 2008.

I'm not understanding the 'minute' increase in CO2 part... atmospheric CO2 levels have peaked at ~280 ppm over the last several hundred thousand years... yet, since 1977, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 333 ppm to 400 ppm - an increase of 20% in less than 40 years, and now stand at a level 42% higher than the 280 ppm peak level that hasn't been breached for almost a million years (and probably alot longer than that). Meanwhile, global temperature anomalies continue to rise: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Also, a bit about the author: http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

It's the thing about percentages. They can be misleading. Because CO2 is such a tiny, tiny part of the atmosphere, you can have a massive percentage change that is actually a fairly small real change. And whether that change is meaningful or not is entirely dependent on what effect it will have.

I can go from the normal 50ppm of residual monomer in a polymer to 250ppm, which is percentage-wise an enormous increase, but still nobody cares because it's well below the level where it will actually affect performance or any of the users health.

Percentages are a nice tool sometimes, but they're just a tool. Throwing around big percentages doesn't make your argument strong, any more than saying that CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere is a strong argument. CO2 could go up by a 1000%, but without being able to explain why and how that's a bad thing you don't get anywhere at all. It's misdirection at best.

I'd rather see people use the numbers to explain why what's happening is a problem, instead of simply going "Check out the big numbers, that's gotta be bad".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And then Republican Politicians say that there is no such thing as global warming. A lot of the last 80 pages say that too... Then why is all the ice melting?

Did you really read the last 80 pages, cause I recall posting a link showing the IPCC exaggerating the depth of the situation at hand. Sure it's happening but to the degree where you are claiming what you are...can you show something that shows a linear progression with projected time of all ice melting? Sure there are some Republicans that dispute it all and so on, but to compare some of the members here to them because they also to a degree don't agree with "oh no all the ice is gonna be gone", is stretching it.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Well... atmospheric CO2 levels never rose above 280 ppm in the last million years or so, staying within the range of 180-280 ppm during the entire period that Homo sapiens have existed, but have risen to 400 ppm since the industrial revolution and 70 ppm since 1977 - with no other plausible explanation other than human activity as the reason behind that rise.

You're making an assumption rather than applying the scientific method you extol in post below. ( A post I completely agree with). Proof is what is required not "plausible" anything.

Quite, but that is my point - scientists can be biased to the point of being incorrect, but they will be found out because of the fact that their data is open to scrutiny and ultimately the truth will out. That's the way science operates whether they like it or not, and it doesn't just apply to individuals, but to the entire scientific community. The peer-review process is almost by definition skeptical, and science is arguably the best example of a self-correcting mechanism.

My only concern in this whole debate is establishing the truth, and I firmly believe that scientific study is the only method by which to address the question. As such, I have a great deal of suspicion of those who fund and are funded by groups whose interests lie elsewhere, be it economic, political or whatever. At least those actually doing real science can be held to account via the scientific method and peer-review process - the same cannot be said for those who spend millions on deliberate obfuscation and misinformation.

 

[sk8er913]

You're making an assumption rather than applying the scientific method you extol in post below. ( A post I completely agree with). Proof is what is required not "plausible" anything.

How is that an assumption? He stated his evidence and then stated his conclusion from the evidence. Thats how science works. And also there is no such thing as proof. Nothing can ever be proven.

 

[Touring Mars]

You're making an assumption rather than applying the scientific method you extol in post below. ( A post I completely agree with). Proof is what is required not "plausible" anything.

No, I'm basing my comments on a consideration of the scientific literature.

 

[sk8er913]

Well... atmospheric CO2 levels never rose above 280 ppm in the last million years or so, staying within the range of 180-280 ppm during the entire period that Homo sapiens have existed, but have risen to 400 ppm since the industrial revolution and 70 ppm since 1977 - with no other plausible explanation other than human activity as the reason behind that rise.

No, I'm basing my comments on a consideration of the scientific literature.

Some people believe we can terraform Mars while others believe we can't terraform our own planet.




Historically temperatures and climates have been directly related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In less than 100 years we will reach 1000ppm, which unfortunately has the negative impacts of being more difficult to terraform mars... and more difficult to survive on our own planet. Because the last time we were at 1000ppm it was a very long time ago and the Earth was a very warm place.

Moderate to severe cooling is predicted over the next 30 years.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

For every prediction of cooling there is a hundred for warming.

Also most of our warming is occurring in the ocean. But we don't notice as much because we live on land.

Here's a cool little graph with global temperatures with the co2 levels superimposed on top of it.

And lastly here is 2006s worldwide carbon emissions. Most of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere is by humans.

 

[Tired Tyres]

According to this video temperature goes up first and then CO2 increases afterwards (800 years afterwards) so CO2 is the effect of temperature change rather than the cause of it.

 

[sk8er913]

According to this video temperature goes up first and then CO2 increases afterwards (800 years afterwards) so CO2 is the effect of temperature change rather than the cause of it.

It's both.

 

[Touring Mars]

According to this video temperature goes up first and then CO2 increases afterwards (800 years afterwards) so CO2 is the effect of temperature change rather than the cause of it.

And yet that doesn't explain in any way the observed anomaly that CO2 levels have broken out of the 180-280 ppm bracket for the first time in at least 700,000 years, with a rise of some 80 ppm in the last 40 years alone. By the way, that natural cycle between 180 and 280 ppm takes over 100,000 years. There's no credible alternative explanation in the scientific literature that adequately explains the magnitude, direction and speed of CO2 (and other LL-GHGs) concentration change in both the atmosphere and, in the case of CO2, in the oceans. Furthermore, the observed changes can explain what has happened to the CO2 that is known to have been emitted in the last several decades - it doesn't just disappear.

 

[Danoff]

For every prediction of cooling there is a hundred for warming.

Truth is not a democracy. The number of people that agree on something doesn't make it right. If 100 people think the Earth is flat and one thinks it is round, who is right? In otherwords, whoever put those charts together doesn't understand science, or knowledge, or much at all about how the world works.

 

[sk8er913]

Truth is not a democracy. The number of people that agree on something doesn't make it right. If 100 people think the Earth is flat and one thinks it is round, who is right? In otherwords, whoever put those charts together doesn't understand science, or knowledge, or much at all about how the world works.

But the vast majority of people don't think the world is flat. So your point is invalid. Science is not a democracy, but when there's a majority among scientist. Its usually the most correct conclusion based on the available evidence.

 

[FoolKiller]

But the vast majority of people don't think the world is flat. So your point is invalid. Science is not a democracy, but when there's a majority among scientist. Its usually the most correct conclusion based on the available evidence.

All science that scientists know today has replaced science that scientists knew in the past. To act like all science is perfect today is ridiculous. Science only works if every theory is tested, challenged, and has all other possibilities ruled out. Even then, it cannot be considered definite and those who doubt it should be allowed a voice until they are proven wrong. Superseded scientific theories are many. I guarantee our descendants will scoff at the things that we "know" to be definite science.


The most dangerous words in science are, "Without a doubt."

 

[Danoff]

But the vast majority of people don't think the world is flat. So your point is invalid. Science is not a democracy, but when there's a majority among scientist. Its usually the most correct conclusion based on the available evidence.

Um.... no.

The majority of people did think the world was flat, just like the majority of people always think whatever the prevailing human understanding is right before someone shatters that with new understanding.

So once again, the number of people that agree has no bearing on whether something is correct. If they did, there is no global warming problem because God made the Earth for us, including the oil.

 

[sk8er913]

Um.... no.

The majority of people did think the world was flat, just like the majority of people always think whatever the prevailing human understanding is right before someone shatters that with new understanding.

So once again, the number of people that agree has no bearing on whether something is correct. If they did, there is no global warming problem because God made the Earth for us, including the oil.

When? The majority have known it to be a sphere for about 550 years.

 

[Danoff]

When? The majority have known it to be a sphere for about 550 years.

More than 550 years ago.

 

[sk8er913]

More than 550 years ago.

Views change over time. Things get edited and changed. So what? Its all guess work and evidence .

 

[Danoff]

Views change over time. Things get edited and changed. So what? Its all guess work and evidence .

So... truth is not a democracy... like I said above?