Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Touring Mars]

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

Perhaps, but there is also a point at which one must accept 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The general gist of your post is quite perplexing - and if you understood anything about how science actually works you'd maybe appreciate how your statement "To act like all science is perfect today is ridiculous" is, well, ridiculous. There is no such thing as 'without a doubt' in science, but there is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Perhaps, but there is also a point at which one must accept 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The general gist of your post is quite perplexing - and if you understood anything about how science actually works you'd maybe appreciate how your statement "To act like all science is perfect today is ridiculous" is, well, ridiculous. There is no such thing as 'without a doubt' in science, but there is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

'beyond all reasonable doubt'' Has put rather a lot of innocent people in prison though so it's just as likely to be completely wrong.

 

[Touring Mars]

So what's your alternative?

The fact is, however, that in science and the justice system, properly applied, the truth will out. How do you know someone is wrongly convicted if not for the fact that evidence ultimately is brought to bear on the original verdict? But the comparison is not fully justified - what FoolKiller seems to be suggesting is that there is ultimately no truth or value is present-day science, which is palpable bollocks. Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt may occassionally result in a wrongful conviction in any particular justice system - but in science it's as close as you can get to the truth, and the chances of ever being proved wrong may well be zero.

 

[Tired Tyres]

So what's your alternative?

There isn't one but taking vested interests, politics and media out of it completely and let Science be Science would be a start.

 

[Touring Mars]

There isn't one but taking vested interests, politics and media out of it completely and let Science be Science would be a start.

My point exactly.

 

[sk8er913]

So what's your alternative?

The fact is, however, that in science and the justice system, properly applied, the truth will out. How do you know someone is wrongly convicted if not for the fact that evidence ultimately is brought to bear on the original verdict? But the comparison is not fully justified - what FoolKiller seems to be suggesting is that there is ultimately no truth or value is present-day science, which is palpable bollocks. Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt may occassionally result in a wrongful conviction in any particular justice system - but in science it's as close as you can get to the truth, and the chances of ever being proved wrong may well be zero.

They'd rather just ignore human involvement and let the planet become inhabitable than make a decision. That's the only alternative I see anyway.

There isn't one but taking vested interests, politics and media out of it completely and let Science be Science would be a start.

People that base their scientific views on their political party are just stupid and should be ignored.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

People that base their scientific views on their political party are just stupid and should be ignored.

Those people aren't the ones in charge of making a change or is their voting block they affiliate with...

If a group of engineers builds cars that circumvent say 10% of what their old cars put out in CO2 emissions, no where does it say they must wait to see which political parties constituents bar them or force them to do this. The group could solely do this on their own accord or at times because of tighter restrictions by the Gov't. The point is as others are saying, Idiot A or Idiot B has no see for or against what they don't know because they don't study the science of it all and then engineer measures to help the world in what ever way possible.

You seem to vest too much faith into those you don't like having this power to more or less in your wording destroy the world.

 

[Biggles]

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.

I think you are misrepresenting the situation here. You are creating a false equivalence between "Big Climate" & "Big Oil". Climate scientists were at work long before "climate change" was perceived as a problem. They worked in universities, government agencies & research groups & received their funding irrespective of what their research indicated. Their job was to do the science, it was not their job to "invent climate change". Over the years a scientific consensus - not unanimous, but clearly a consensus - gradually emerged that climate change was underway & that it was likely anthropogenic. It's simply not accurate to say that in the case of most of these scientists "funding can be yanked the moment they contradict the anti-crisis message". The research being done by these scientists isn't a simple "yes" or "no" to climate change.

In contrast, Exxon Mobile funded its own research team in the 1970's. These scientists, working without an imposed corporate agenda, came to the conclusion that burning fossil fuels could have drastic consequences on the global climate. but Exxon Mobile then chose to shut down this research & starting in the mid-'80's shifted their focus to funding climate change skeptics & disseminating anti-climate change information.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...gnored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

This was a calculated strategy on their part to protect their own economic self-interest. Their excuse was: "the science isn't settled" ... which was true to some degree - there was a lot about climate change that was not fully understood & still isn't - but the point is their starting point was clearly self-interest NOT the science.

Incidentally, NOW even a company such as Exxon Mobile accepts the "risks to society posed by increasing GHG emissions".

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview

 

[sk8er913]

Those people aren't the ones in charge of making a change or is their voting block they affiliate with...

If a group of engineers builds cars that circumvent say 10% of what their old cars put out in CO2 emissions, no where does it say they must wait to see which political parties constituents bar them or force them to do this. The group could solely do this on their own accord or at times because of tighter restrictions by the Gov't. The point is as others are saying, Idiot A or Idiot B has no see for or against what they don't know because they don't study the science of it all and then engineer measures to help the world in what ever way possible.

You seem to vest too much faith into those you don't like having this power to more or less in your wording destroy the world.

The engineers are less likely to do it on their own though, because it cost the company more.

 

[Dotini]

I think you are misrepresenting the situation here. You are creating a false equivalence between "Big Climate" & "Big Oil". Climate scientists were at work long before "climate change" was perceived as a problem. They worked in universities, government agencies & research groups & received their funding irrespective of what their research indicated. Their job was to do the science, it was not their job to "invent climate change". Over the years a scientific consensus - not unanimous, but clearly a consensus - gradually emerged that climate change was underway & that it was likely anthropogenic. It's simply not accurate to say that in the case of most of these scientists "funding can be yanked the moment they contradict the anti-crisis message". The research being done by these scientists isn't a simple "yes" or "no" to climate change.

In contrast, Exxon Mobile funded its own research team in the 1970's. These scientists, working without an imposed corporate agenda, came to the conclusion that burning fossil fuels could have drastic consequences on the global climate. but Exxon Mobile then chose to shut down this research & starting in the mid-'80's shifted their focus to funding climate change skeptics & disseminating anti-climate change information.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...gnored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

This was a calculated strategy on their part to protect their own economic self-interest. Their excuse was: "the science isn't settled" ... which was true to some degree - there was a lot about climate change that was not fully understood & still isn't - but the point is their starting point was clearly self-interest NOT the science.

Incidentally, NOW even a company such as Exxon Mobile accepts the "risks to society posed by increasing GHG emissions".

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview

Nice post, well thought out and stated.

However, I will point out that the topic remains extremely divisive and controversial within the community of physicists represented on the Physics Forum that I am a member of. So much so that the topic is banned from discussion!!

Judging from what is currently being learned at the cutting edge of geophysics studies concerning the operations of Earth's core and magnetic field, and from similar heliophysical studies of the Sun's cycles, magnetic field reversals, etc, it seems very possible to me that Earth will experience some serious cooling before any major warming is felt. And cooling is more dangerous than warming due to crop failures.

Maybe it is just me that is sceptical and fatalistic about the whole thing? How are we to correctly know the future and make big, expensive decisions, policies and taxes to mitigate it??

As Yogi Berra quipped, "Predictions are difficult, especially about the future."

Even so, I will make the ironical and hilarious prediction that at some point in the near future, we are going to be taxed to mitigate both global warming and global cooling at the same time!

 

[BobK]

I will make the ironical and hilarious prediction that at some point in the near future, we are going to be taxed to mitigate both global warming and global cooling at the same time!

Sad to say, I agree this is likely to happen.

 

[Danoff]

I think you are misrepresenting the situation here. You are creating a false equivalence between "Big Climate" & "Big Oil". Climate scientists were at work long before "climate change" was perceived as a problem. They worked in universities, government agencies & research groups & received their funding irrespective of what their research indicated. Their job was to do the science, it was not their job to "invent climate change". Over the years a scientific consensus - not unanimous, but clearly a consensus - gradually emerged that climate change was underway & that it was likely anthropogenic. It's simply not accurate to say that in the case of most of these scientists "funding can be yanked the moment they contradict the anti-crisis message". The research being done by these scientists isn't a simple "yes" or "no" to climate change.

In contrast, Exxon Mobile funded its own research team in the 1970's. These scientists, working without an imposed corporate agenda, came to the conclusion that burning fossil fuels could have drastic consequences on the global climate. but Exxon Mobile then chose to shut down this research & starting in the mid-'80's shifted their focus to funding climate change skeptics & disseminating anti-climate change information.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...gnored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

This was a calculated strategy on their part to protect their own economic self-interest. Their excuse was: "the science isn't settled" ... which was true to some degree - there was a lot about climate change that was not fully understood & still isn't - but the point is their starting point was clearly self-interest NOT the science.

Incidentally, NOW even a company such as Exxon Mobile accepts the "risks to society posed by increasing GHG emissions".

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview

Explain to me why it is a false equivalence. You've given no reason to think that it is. Examples of climate scientists working before the issue was a major political one, or a refusal to accept the conclusions of climate scientists on the part of a corporation is not a rebuttal to that point. Universities, government agencies, and research groups are not somehow immune to influence or bias. There is no such thing as an independent impartial group in the topic of climate change.

Also, see my earlier post about "consensus".

 

[FoolKiller]

your statement "To act like all science is perfect today is ridiculous" is, well, ridiculous.

So all science is beyond a reasonable doubt and refusing to believe that we don't know everything and thinking that we could be wrong is ridiculous? Well then, I propose we only apply research funding to new research of new ideas and hope that they never contradict all the science that we already know "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Once upon a time it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Earth was literally the center of the universe, man couldn't fly, go faster than sound, go to space, land on the moon, or even have light without fire. Some people even died because those around them thought that their questioning of known science was ridiculous and dangerous. Yeah, those were do to religious fanatics, but I see a lot of climate change debates, on both sides, sounding an awfully lot like religion debates.

I am not arguing in favor of creationism by saying, "science has been wrong before so it must be wrong here." I am saying that it is ridiculous to refuse to even accept that research with conflicting results is worth looking at. I don't give a damn about funding sources if the research stands up to proper peer review. I'm hearing people decide to discriminate against certain research purely on the basis of the funding source. That is then followed up with the high and mighty attitude of, "my side is above reproach because we would never do that sort of thing." I keep track of heart research enough to see how groups like the AHA are considered beyond reproach in their research findings and have a majority consensus of scientists behind them, only for them to have to admit they were wrong decades later. Even non-profits have a bias because being wrong on the tiniest thing hurts their credibility.

In medical science, settling on beyond all reasonable doubt has resulted in deaths. Climate change science may not seem as important as to have incorrect data result in deaths, although I could argue that it can, but steadfastly defending one side as irreproachable and the other as corrupt sounds odd to me. Almost dogmatic.

My vote on the above poll is that the causes are not known. I don't deny that climate change exists. I only say that we don't know everything and that we must continue to research it. The current trend seems to be to claim that it is a case of one definitive reason. Maybe I am just a layman, but I find it hard to believe that a system as large as Earth has only one variable affecting climate and that, especially when we know that the climate changed in both directions long before that variable existed.

 

[Touring Mars]

So all science is beyond a reasonable doubt

No. How you can read that into what I said is beyond me. I said there is such a thing as beyond a reasonable doubt - obviously that doesn't apply to all science.

 

[FoolKiller]

No. How you can read that into what I said is beyond me. I said there is such a thing as beyond a reasonable doubt - obviously that doesn't apply to all science.

You quoted me when originally I said "all science."

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The engineers are less likely to do it on their own though, because it cost the company more.

...No, engineers will do what they're told based on project guidelines and usually making a cleaner more efficient machine is cost effective in a longer run or duration of life, than a simplistic crude version. Not every group of engineers works for VW.

 

[Danoff]

They'd rather just ignore human involvement and let the planet become inhabitable than make a decision.

Strawman combined with ad hominem. Try to keep your logical fallacies to one per sentence.

 

[sk8er913]

...No, engineers will do what they're told based on project guidelines and usually making a cleaner more efficient machine is cost effective in a longer run or duration of life, than a simplistic crude version. Not every group of engineers works for VW.

VW is a perfect example. Didn't think of that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

VW is a perfect example. Didn't think of that.

Yes but not the example that you should think of as an across the board one, and I'm guessing you didn't quite get what I said.

 

[Dotini]

Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, "It might have been!" - John Greenleaf Whittier
The happiest words are, "I told you so!" - Gore Vidal


Science
MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
'Could explain recent disagreements'

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

 

[I Am Yellow]

Sheesh, I'm ashamed that I once voted for the option "Global warming is occurring, but human activity is only playing a minor role"

edit: and I'm no scientist (well, not of hard science at least), but I'd say the correct term would be "climate change" rather than "global warming", as while the change promotes higher average temperatures, it also causes harsher winters and more unpredictable weather.

 

[Danoff]

Sheesh, I'm ashamed that I once voted for the option "Global warming is occurring, but human activity is only playing a minor role"

How would you vote now?

 

[I Am Yellow]

How would you vote now?

"Global warming is occurring and human activity is the main cause", naturally.

 

[Danoff]

"Global warming is occurring and human activity is the main cause", naturally.

...and why do you think that? (I feel like these questions are kindof implied by the thread)

 

[Imari]

Let me put this question out there:

What would be the normal expected range of climate variation on Earth without any human impact?

If humans were removed entirely from the planet, and the populations of every other species on Earth were bumped a bit to compensate for the fact that the ecosystem has just lost a sizeable chunk of biomass, how would you expect the climate to behave?

 

[Dotini]

Let me put this question out there:

What would be the normal expected range of climate variation on Earth without any human impact?

If humans were removed entirely from the planet, and the populations of every other species on Earth were bumped a bit to compensate for the fact that the ecosystem has just lost a sizeable chunk of biomass, how would you expect the climate to behave?

I would expect the climate to behave more or less like it did before the human impact occurred. And the human impact began with the massive growth of population and the massive burning of coal and eventually petroleum, i.e., about 300 years ago.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I would expect the climate to behave more or less like it did before the human impact occurred. And the human impact began with the massive growth of population and the massive burning of coal and eventually petroleum, i.e., about 300 years ago.

Your answer seems vague, it reads as though you're answering the question "what would the climate variation be without human impact" with "it will be the same as before there was human impact". A better answer would be one that tries to approximate how much our CO2 contributions effects the global temperature. For example if we didn't exist X amount of CO2 wouldn't have been put into the atmosphere approximately increasing the temperature by Y because of Z. I would fill in the blanks myself, but I don't know them

 

[Imari]

I would expect the climate to behave more or less like it did before the human impact occurred.

Which is what exactly? How did it behave before 300 years ago?

The climate is not a static system. We all know this. It changes. What is the acceptable range within which an Earth-like climate system would be considered to be behaving normally, without "outside" influences like humans burning fossil fuels?

 

[Dotini]

Which is what exactly? How did it behave before 300 years ago?

The climate is not a static system. We all know this. It changes. What is the acceptable range within which an Earth-like climate system would be considered to be behaving normally, without "outside" influences like humans burning fossil fuels?

If it is okay with you I would like to briefly discuss climate over a multi-million year scale going back to before the lower Paleozoic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
This clock representation shows some of the major units of geological time and definitive events of Earth history. The Hadean eon represents the time before fossil record of life on Earth; its upper boundary is now regarded as 4.0 Ga (billion years ago).[1] Other subdivisions reflect the evolution of life; the Archean and Proterozoic are both eons, the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic are eras of the Phanerozoic eon. The two million year Quaternary period, the time of recognizable humans, is too small to be visible at this scale.

 

[Imari]

If it is okay with you I would like to briefly discuss climate over a multi-million year scale going back to before the lower Paleozoic?

Sure. So between 300 years ago and ~500 million years ago?

If we're taking anything inside that range as reasonable variation, then the current levels of carbon dioxide are fine. CO2 is ~400ppm now, and so for pretty much all of that period has been much higher than that no matter what model you use to extrapolate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Likewise, for pretty much all of that period the temperature has been much higher than it is now. It's only the last million years or so that have been at or below our current temperature, although the last ten million are in the ballpark. But then again, 10 million years ago is +5 degrees, which is catastrophic global warming according to some.

Historically, the climate is not stable, and we're about due for it to spike. Look at the Pleistocene data. Spikes every 100k years or so, most of the "recent" ones to a decent bit above the 1960-90 average. Last one was ~100k years ago. This is back of the envelope stuff, but even without any other data than that graph the temperature getting a bit warmer than it is now doesn't seem surprising to me. At all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

So in what way is the climate now not behaving within the acceptable range defined by your reference period?