Global Warming not Real?

[Sparrow]

On the forum, a few weeks ago, I saw someone make a post stating that global warming is a big sham. It really sparked my curiosity. I haven't got the chance to research further. Anyone care to explain? XD

 

[menaceh2k]

Well in my environmental Science classes I learn about the evidence that is leading towards global warming. Most nay sayers are arguing that its all circumstantial. Preventative treatments are very difficult to implement when lots of cost are involved. Records are showing that we are making a significant impact on the earth temperature wise. We are releasing complex compounds into the atmosphere that enhances greenhouse effects and degrades the earths protective layer. Too tell you the truth, I hope it is a lot of hubbub, but the science is saying otherwise. Treating the causes of global warming is bad for business, so there will be a lot of opposition. I'm sure the rest of the class will have better insights on this. lol.

 

[lafmeche]

I find that 'circumstantial evidence' argument extremely silly. Circumstantial or not, it points in the direction of we're ruining the planet. That's way more proof than 99% of global warming naysayers have. All of the anti-GW stuff I've read so far basically says 'but the planet has warmed and cooled this many times in the past, so it can't be true'.

I see it as being similar to the evolution/religion arguments in a lot of ways:
Evolution folks say 'look at all these fossils (that we can infer approximate ages for) that appear to be slowly changing over time' and creationists say 'that can't be true because this book says so'.

As a thinker (and more specifically, an INTP), I personally cannot understand how anybody can just take the words of any book or person at face value without seeing some actual raw information.

I'm not trying to start an evolution fight and I'm not saying that anyone's wrong about global warming, but when these kinds of things come up, I'm always going to side with the group that has better objective evidence, and I have yet to see much from the naysayers.

 

[Beat Mango]

Well the world is warming, it's just a matter of what's causing it.

 

[Words]

I don't care about it seeing as how I don't care if we all die or not. "Let's focus independently and less collectively" is my mindset. I do care if its just myself who dies but I won't if its a major blow on humanity. Still, I'd rather survive so....nah. Let there be Global Warming!!!

 

[Agent Intellect]

Anyone who does not think that climate change is occurring is either lying, or has been deceived. Anyone who does not think that humans have any influence on the global climate is probably victim to the same.

That being said, the exact magnitude of our impact, and what sorts of effects this will have on a global scale, and on a long term scale, is where the questionable validity comes in. All of the predictions about global catastrophe, about humans as a single variable cause to an intricately multi-variable complex dynamic system, are a bit disingenuous. Too many people who too much at stake in global warming (scientists who need grants, oil businessmen who need money to feed their families, politicians who need to be re-elected etc etc) to get a clear picture of the scope of this phenomenon - but, as has been mentioned, the evidence points almost unanimously towards a climate shift trend that is at least correlative with carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

That doesn't mean that skepticism is not a good thing - just that it should be informed skepticism. There is a lot of misinformation that has been willingly put out there for the sole purpose of deception. Consider the following:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Was sort of a big deal when it was released as 'evidence against anthropogenic global warming'. It looks very convincing and very professional. But, this paper has been shown to have fraudulent claims and fudged data:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

But the OISM paper is still linked to by a lot of global warming skeptic/denier websites, and a lot of people are going to get their information from sources like that. Especially on the internet, people have to watch where they get their information and make sure to quadruple check the validity of their sources.

 

[fullerene]

That's weird... I agree that that paper does look really professional (though I did just glance through it, and didn't read it carefully.... judging by the graphs I doubt anything would stand out too badly to me). I would say that I'm one of the people who strongly suspects the real evidence for it isn't as strong as it's commonly thought; a lot of it smells very fishy... not in the least because politicians are the people you hear most often speaking out against it, and the simple fact that if you can't get funding, as a scientist, you're not going to be able to do the research you'd like. Lots of science is government funded, so if they're the ones who would benefit from global warming stuff.... well, you get the idea. I guess lots of science is business-funded too, though, so

but I have a lot of respect for you, your diligence in checking sources and counter-sources, and ability to process arguments objectively... so I'd like to hear more about what you've found while researching it?

 

[lafmeche]

...I would say that I'm one of the people who strongly suspects the real evidence for it isn't as strong as it's commonly thought; a lot of it smells very fishy...

When you say that, do you mean that you don't believe humanity is causing problems? Or you just don't think that we're two steps away from annihilating ourselves? What exactly smells fishy?

not in the least because politicians are the people you hear most often speaking out against it, and the simple fact that if you can't get funding, as a scientist, you're not going to be able to do the research you'd like. Lots of science is government funded, so if they're the ones who would benefit from global warming stuff.... well, you get the idea. I guess lots of science is business-funded too, though, so

That is true about funding, but a good study seeks to find an answer to a question, not a simple confirmation of a theory. 'Confirmation' is easy to get and often misleading. True understanding is nigh impossible and requires serious commitment.

As far as politicians... I don't think you can trust 99% of them. They're either trying to scare people into doing what they want, or reassure them to pacify them (I'm exaggerating here, but only slightly...)

As is usually the case with politicians and politically-funded science, I'm sure the answer is somewhere in between the two camps.

 

[Kuu]

provocative, unsubstantiated claim:

Most global warming deniers are american.

 

[Cogwulf]

The science behind climate change is perfectly sound, but the process is simply just too long term for any hard evidence for at least a few decades yet. At the present moment in time there isn't even enough data or models accurate enough to give anything other than an order of magnitude approximation of how the climate will progress.

I think worrying about global warming is pointless, there is the much bigger problem of finite fossil fuel reserves. If predictions of climate change could be described as vague, then predictions of the impact of climate change on civilisation are hopelessly inadequate. But if we were to run out of only just one of oil, coal or gas before an alternative is available the effects on us would be catastrophic.
We should be working to reduce our use of fossil fuels and develop alternatives as fast as is possible regardless of whether or not global warming is real.

 

[lafmeche]

The science behind climate change is perfectly sound, but the process is simply just too long term for any hard evidence for at least a few decades yet. At the present moment in time there isn't even enough data or models accurate enough to give anything other than an order of magnitude approximation of how the climate will progress.

I think worrying about global warming is pointless, there is the much bigger problem of finite fossil fuel reserves. If predictions of climate change could be described as vague, then predictions of the impact of climate change on civilisation are hopelessly inadequate. But if we were to run out of only just one of oil, coal or gas before an alternative is available the effects on us would be catastrophic.
We should be working to reduce our use of fossil fuels and develop alternatives as fast as is possible regardless of whether or not global warming is real.

I agree with you that we should be working on alternative power sources, regardless of the global warming situation. It's likely that we'll see the effects of the finite resource issue before the devastating effects of global warming, but that doesn't mean we can necessarily afford to wait to deal with it. Certainly it's better to try to address it now, before it potentially becomes irreversible (assuming it isn’t already)? It's not like every able-bodied person is needed for one or the other. We have the resources to work on both.

For example, fusion power (not ITER and tokamaks, I'm talking Polywell and similar) and advanced batteries have the potential to very quickly alleviate many of the problems, and both fields are making a lot of headway these days. Why not take the money that’s being used to bicker about global warming and limited fuel, and use it provide more funding and incentives for these things like fusion and batteries… Then we might be able solve both problems at once. Plus, even if both global warming and finite resources are non-issues, we'd still potentially be getting dirt-cheap power and extreme versatility. (Yes, I realize fusion may not work out. Just pointing out the possibility)

 

[NoID10ts]

provocative, unsubstantiated claim:

Most global warming deniers are american.

Don't forget that we also deny evolution, the big bang, homosexuality, and the existence of Mexico.

 

[EditorOne]

As a corollary, many Americans now have the attention span of gnats.

 

[lafmeche]

Don't forget that we also deny evolution, the big bang, homosexuality, and the existence of Mexico.

Don't forget: the government is really a bunch of commies that are out to steal your money and is conspiring to let the socialists (democrats) rip your baby from your womb so they can experiment on it.

No, I don't really know exactly what I just said, but it sounds just like stuff I hear from people around me. And yes, I really love this smiley:

Mexico

Whatsico?

 

[lafmeche]

...aside from the communism part that's actually pretty accurate. By any definition the prevailing social and economic policies/platforms espoused by most prominent politicians in the US (social security, heavy estate taxes, tiered income tax structure, tending towards welfare state/Keynesian fiscal initiatives/government intervention in markets, etc.) would fit nicely under the socialist/collectivist umbrella. Apparently candidates of this ilk are known as 'third way' or social democratic party members, although there are some out n' proud socialists like Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders (who also happen to be some of the most outspoken proponents of universal, single payer healthcare). At the very least it's a 'mixed' economy here, somewhere between capitalism and socialism...I wish for once people who immediately rush to what they presume to be the intellectual high ground would think about what they're actually defending (less personal liberty, less money in your pockets, etc.) when they make these sorts of remarks.

Oh, I'm well aware of how twisted the government is. I was just poking a little fun at the ultra-conservatives that I work with. They cry socialism/communism and point to silly examples of policies and concepts that actually are useful.

For example, I recently had a discussion/argument with my boss about net neutrality. He apparently had bought into the load of crap coming from the ISPs that they can 'improve' things by prioritizing certain traffic on their networks. Also, nuclear power is bad and will cause us to mutate. Oh, and I'm destroying America because I bought a Mazda (made in Japan!).

I haven't even had a rational discussion with these people about welfare, social security, health care, or any other issue that really matters. Actually, I think I'd be afraid to.

Edit: What just happened? I swear I just quoted and replied to a post and now it's gone? Am I going crazy again?

 

[fullerene]

ahh... you're new here. If you write a post with an external link in it, the post vanishes and it goes to a spam-filter thing which the mods/admins have to clean out periodically. I imagine that would be pretty confusing if you weren't used to it... but don't worry, it'll show up when the mods get around to approving it.... probably within a few hours, or at most days.

When you say that, do you mean that you don't believe humanity is causing problems? Or you just don't think that we're two steps away from annihilating ourselves? What exactly smells fishy?

That's a good question... sorry about the vagueness.

I would say, of the fishy-sounding things...

1. Nearly every planet in the solar system has been getting warmer recently. I linked a whole bunch of sites about each one some months ago... but I've long since lost the links (this isn't really a very interesting topic, to me, for some reason). Google searching did come up with some counter-evidence (mainly here), but you could practically summarize it as "we don't know enough to say whether other planets are warming due to solar activity or not." It's filled with arguments that deflect a lot of skeptic's arguments with uncertainty, but didn't offer too much in the way of convincing me that each of those planets were warming for other reasons. Argument from lack of evidence is... meh.

2. Like I mentioned, the media and politicians love to talk about global warming. Even with that one site I found while googling, it was surrounded by dozens of news sites that make tons of claims, cite people's names without links to their actual papers, etc. I'm in college as a physics major now, so I hear plenty of fantastically interesting research that goes on all the time; just today, I heard a talk by a bio-physicist discussing the physics of viruses, and how certain pressures and conditions render them unable to inject host cells with their own genetic material. This would mean that we wouldn't even need to screw around with creating vaccines, which only work on one type of virus at a time, but could ruin their reproduction capabilities, protecting us from all of them at once.

Why don't politicians dump money into research that could prevent viral infections altogether, in a much longer-lasting way? I don't know... but for some reason they ignore lots of other interesting science in order to hound over and over again on greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not saying that makes them wrong.... and quite honestly, even if they're completely BSing the whole topic it might not be a bad thing (say, for instance, if politicians are under unseen stress by businesses, and they saw global warming as a way to strike back... I wouldn't be too upset), but it is a little fishy.

3. Extrapolation: fitting lines to data, statistically, is not an easy task. If you wanted to truly "best fit" a lot of data with n points taken, you could very easily create an nth order polynomial that hits every single one of your points exactly, and use it to "predict" how things will go in the future. It would look absurd, and I don't think many people would think it were actually an accurate predictor... but it would fit all your data points perfectly.

Yet if you look at "trends" there are always polynomial approximations to any function. I attached two quick plots I made, both of the functions y=x and y=sin(x)... but with different ranges. One ranges from -.5 to .5, and the other ranges from .5 to 5

The way I see these arguments go, at least, is that global warming advocates want you to believe the y=x plot describes our temperatures, and the global warming deniers want you to believe the y=sin(x) plot describes them. Given a short enough window of time, they look virtually identical. Given enough time, one is disastrous while the other is harmless... but I don't know how they could tell so soon? This leads into...

4. The absolute certainty that every popular face discussing climate change seems to have. It's already started popping up in this thread: "Most global warming deniers are American." In America, that's the general attitude too. There was one kid on my floor, freshman year, who came in saying he didn't think global warming was happening, but (he was a really likable guy) he avoided talking about it at all costs because he knew the responses it would bring. I suspect he's an ENFJ, so he didn't want to fight about it. The overewhelming, popular message is clear: if you deny global warming, then you're an ignorant little pissant who clearly hasn't put enough thought into the subject. Don't get me wrong, I don't care much what you think of me for it... but I reserve the right to suspect you don't have the undeniable evidence that you think you do. So I also find this inexplicable certainty fishy, which brings up...

5. At this point, people usually quote some news article that speaks about how undeniable the evidence is, as if it were undeniable evidence itself. This is fishy because I suspect that we have a teacher/student public-school-system-like loop of "well this person said it was obvious" going on. This is also especially why I took interest in the fact that AI said "anyone who thinks climate change isn't happening is either lying or deceived." He has a reputation (at least with me) of digging up reliable sources, processing them carefully and very often checking up with the other side. I suspect it was because of this that he said "climate change" and not "global warming" (since 'climate change' would be both the y = x and y = sin(x) graph, while 'warming' would only be the y = x one), and why his post lacked the condescension that most people (really, people who are so certain on both sides of the argument) are filled with. He's an exception, though, so in general: I find the "he said it" loop that most people get into sketchy as well.



so... I would say mostly things like this. It's not like I see any particular part of the evidence fishy (like you were looking for, "that it would bring about catastrophe," or "that the climate is changing," or any of those), but the situation of global warming, as a whole, is fishy. Again, it may just be that politicians are under economic pressure by businesses, and they saw greenhouse gas emissions as a good way to fight back silently--in which case even if they were lying, if it were for the purpose of fighting oppression I might not be upset at them for it--but the topic, as a whole, just.... I would be very surprised if there weren't something else going on here.

 

[Luminates]

provocative, unsubstantiated claim:

Most global warming deniers are american.

I guess that would be obvious right?

I have had no care for any issues related to or concerning Global warming. The way I see it, I'll be enjoying the world's demise from within the ground, most likely with a grave above me
It is obvious that as far as the human race goes, we are having an impact on the earth, environmentally speaking, but for any actual effects to be seen that would cause a disruption in daily life, or just be seen as a dangerous threat towards society, that will be morally based on a long term effect.

I think we need to stop worrying about, why or how it was done, but how to fix it, or rather, how to obtain a final solution because I highly doubt some "go green" slogans will do the job. Re-inventing vehicles to be more eco-friendly is a start, but I consider that just the fundamental start. Maybe it's too soon for us to get involved? Maybe we need to wait until we make more technological advances? Maybe its just not our time yet.

 

[Dormouse]

I think global warming is a misnomer, it really should be referred to as 'climate change' or 'negative human impacts upon the environment'.
I mean, just look at the air qualities of some cities and it's pretty clear the toxins we're releasing into the air are becoming a detriment to quality of life...
And that's an immediate problem, not something we'll only have to worry about in a century or two.
Not to mention, as Cogwulf said, all hell will break loose if we run out of oil before new technologies are developped.

As for long term effects, they're difficult to predict, and it's true that some evidence points to this being a cycle repeated by our climate, but possibly accelerated by humans.
In some areas flooding attributed to climate change has already begun to trouble the inhabitants. I think what's really important is that, one step at a time, we prepare ourselves for the worse, or at least look into methods of coping that are somewhat friendler to our planet.

 

[Luminates]

You guys think that this event or so is a chronic occurrence? As in something that's happened through stages of time? Consider it a method of the earth cleaning itself from harmful species (aka- Humans) and all we are doing is speeding up the process? maybe it's impossible to avoid, and if so then what will we do? Try to lessen the process?

 

[lafmeche]

Frankly, Fullerene, your post seems kind of defensive. I was just asking what you meant, not challenging you. You've obviously given this some thought and I respect that. Anyway, it seems we're basically on the same page in that we don't completely trust any of the claims flying back and forth. I'm leaning toward man-influenced, potentially problematic climate change. If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be leaning the other direction.

As far as the 'Americans' comment, it's obvious Kuu was just having a little fun...

At any rate, the main reason I asked is because I deal with half-witted S-types all day who seem to see things in terms of gummy bears and unicorns, unless they're complaining about the gubmint stealing their money. I doubt if half of them would have a clue about the science behind all this stuff (I'm an engineer, so I have plenty of science background...)

Luminates:
I have no doubt that earth will go through extreme hot and cold cycles in the future. The goal in my eyes is to avoid making it happen prematurely and for mankind to be sufficiently advanced when it does occur to be able to do something about it (ie. geo-engineeering, resettlement, etc.).

 

[Agent Intellect]

1. Nearly every planet in the solar system has been getting warmer recently. I linked a whole bunch of sites about each one some months ago... but I've long since lost the links (this isn't really a very interesting topic, to me, for some reason). Google searching did come up with some counter-evidence (mainly here), but you could practically summarize it as "we don't know enough to say whether other planets are warming due to solar activity or not." It's filled with arguments that deflect a lot of skeptic's arguments with uncertainty, but didn't offer too much in the way of convincing me that each of those planets were warming for other reasons. Argument from lack of evidence is... meh.

The warming on Mars is due to albedo changes on account of variable wind patterns - a phenomenon that is "unique to Mars".
There are a few hypotheses about the climate change on Jupiter (1) (2)

2. Like I mentioned, the media and politicians love to talk about global warming. Even with that one site I found while googling, it was surrounded by dozens of news sites that make tons of claims, cite people's names without links to their actual papers, etc. I'm in college as a physics major now, so I hear plenty of fantastically interesting research that goes on all the time; just today, I heard a talk by a bio-physicist discussing the physics of viruses, and how certain pressures and conditions render them unable to inject host cells with their own genetic material. This would mean that we wouldn't even need to screw around with creating vaccines, which only work on one type of virus at a time, but could ruin their reproduction capabilities, protecting us from all of them at once.

This argument can go both ways. Skeptics point at liberals and and pro-green organizations and cry foul, and they in turn point at conservatives and oil barons and accuse them of sophistry. I don't think either side having an agenda is a good argument either way - but it is cause for treading on the subject with caution.

Why don't politicians dump money into research that could prevent viral infections altogether, in a much longer-lasting way? I don't know... but for some reason they ignore lots of other interesting science in order to hound over and over again on greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not saying that makes them wrong.... and quite honestly, even if they're completely BSing the whole topic it might not be a bad thing (say, for instance, if politicians are under unseen stress by businesses, and they saw global warming as a way to strike back... I wouldn't be too upset), but it is a little fishy.

It's about playing to the audience. Global warming affects everyone (whether you believe in it or not, what people do about it will affect you), but people who don't already have AIDS or Hepatitis or some other viral infection (or know someone that does) it's a non issue to them.

3. Extrapolation: fitting lines to data, statistically, is not an easy task. If you wanted to truly "best fit" a lot of data with n points taken, you could very easily create an nth order polynomial that hits every single one of your points exactly, and use it to "predict" how things will go in the future. It would look absurd, and I don't think many people would think it were actually an accurate predictor... but it would fit all your data points perfectly.

Yet if you look at "trends" there are always polynomial approximations to any function. I attached two quick plots I made, both of the functions y=x and y=sin(x)... but with different ranges. One ranges from -.5 to .5, and the other ranges from .5 to 5

The way I see these arguments go, at least, is that global warming advocates want you to believe the y=x plot describes our temperatures, and the global warming deniers want you to believe the y=sin(x) plot describes them. Given a short enough window of time, they look virtually identical. Given enough time, one is disastrous while the other is harmless... but I don't know how they could tell so soon? This leads into...

Prediction models are definitely the main aspect of climate change that I find dubious.

There are, though, other lines of evidence for climate change:

http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf
http://biolambiental.posgrado.unam.mx/pdf/Pounds1999.pdf

Although that does not necessarily mean that it's anthropogenic influenced climate change, but, as I said earlier, there is at least a correlation between rising CO2 (1) if not a causal relationship.

4. The absolute certainty that every popular face discussing climate change seems to have. It's already started popping up in this thread: "Most global warming deniers are American." In America, that's the general attitude too. There was one kid on my floor, freshman year, who came in saying he didn't think global warming was happening, but (he was a really likable guy) he avoided talking about it at all costs because he knew the responses it would bring. I suspect he's an ENFJ, so he didn't want to fight about it. The overewhelming, popular message is clear: if you deny global warming, then you're an ignorant little pissant who clearly hasn't put enough thought into the subject. Don't get me wrong, I don't care much what you think of me for it... but I reserve the right to suspect you don't have the undeniable evidence that you think you do. So I also find this inexplicable certainty fishy, which brings up...

This is something I have experienced myself. I believe that the climate is changing and that there is an anthropogenic influence, but the global warming disaster scenarios I find dubious, and I'm skeptical about many of the claims.

You should read the transcript of a speech (or watch the video) the late Michael Crichton gave on global warming and the complex system of of climatology and ecology.

5. At this point, people usually quote some news article that speaks about how undeniable the evidence is, as if it were undeniable evidence itself. This is fishy because I suspect that we have a teacher/student public-school-system-like loop of "well this person said it was obvious" going on. This is also especially why I took interest in the fact that AI said "anyone who thinks climate change isn't happening is either lying or deceived." He has a reputation (at least with me) of digging up reliable sources, processing them carefully and very often checking up with the other side. I suspect it was because of this that he said "climate change" and not "global warming" (since 'climate change' would be both the y = x and y = sin(x) graph, while 'warming' would only be the y = x one), and why his post lacked the condescension that most people (really, people who are so certain on both sides of the argument) are filled with. He's an exception, though, so in general: I find the "he said it" loop that most people get into sketchy as well.

I definitely make a point of saying "climate change" as opposed to "global warming". I think climate change is undeniable, as it has happened all through earths history (1) (2):

Spoiler

so... I would say mostly things like this. It's not like I see any particular part of the evidence fishy (like you were looking for, "that it would bring about catastrophe," or "that the climate is changing," or any of those), but the situation of global warming, as a whole, is fishy. Again, it may just be that politicians are under economic pressure by businesses, and they saw greenhouse gas emissions as a good way to fight back silently--in which case even if they were lying, if it were for the purpose of fighting oppression I might not be upset at them for it--but the topic, as a whole, just.... I would be very surprised if there weren't something else going on here.

I'm sure both sides have blown their arguments out of proportion, but I do think that there is valid scientific evidence that suggests that human activity has had effects on the global climate - but, of course, that's almost tautology, as it would be completely unavoidable not to have an influence on ones own environment, and humans inhabit pretty much the entire globe.

I really have no qualms with the evidence and the conclusion of climate change with humans as one of many variables involved, it's the predictions that are both a) sketchy, and b) cited most often by either side of the debate in favor of their own argument.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I made a response, but the filter caught it.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The crux of the debate revolves around the notion of climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity entails the amount of radiative forcing due to alterations of the many thousands of factors that effect that climate at any given point in time. However, the main factors that is constantly being addressed is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Especially, in regards to the anthropogenic contribution. The forcing and climate sensitivity is related to a variety of factors such as feedback mechanisms.


One that radiative forcing due to concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic; the rate of forcing decreases with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


To quickly show the difference in calculations of the IPCC ( bureaucrats) and independent scientists.


Radiative forcing equation.


dF= 5.35*ln(C/Ci) <--- IPCC 1995
dF= 1.78*ln*C/Ci) <--- Lindzen 2008


dF= change in forcing
C= concentration final
Ci= concentration initial


Temperature Equation


dT= k*f*dF


dT=0.31*3.1*dF <--- IPCC 1995
dT=0.24*1.75*dF <--- Monckton 2008, derived from Dr Evans


k= Planck's reciprocal constant.
f= feedback multiplier


Calculations of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere:


Ci = 388 ppm (current level)
C = 776 ppm


IPCC


dF=5.35*ln(776/388)= 3.70 W/(m^2)
dT=0.31*3.1*3.70= 3.56 Kelvin

Independents


dF=1.78*ln(776/388)= 1.23 W/(m^2)
dT=0.24*1.75*1.23= 0.51 Kelvin


The IPCC result is 7.25 times greater than the independent results. The results differ due to the supposed magnitude of the feedback multiplier. Both the radiative forcing factor and the climate sensitivity values have been altered within the IPCC calculations to include positive feedback mechanisms that have been over estimated, intrinsically flawed or simply do not exist.


Two examples of this are the cloud albedo feedback and melting permafrost methane emissions:


The general theory in the IPCC literature is that with increased warming of the climate will lead to a decrease global cloud cover. Clouds reflect sunlight during the day resulting in less radiation coming into contact with the earth's surface. Clouds are formations of water vapour that also serve as a function of retaining heat in the atmosphere. The flaws in the cloud albedo feedback revolve around the decrease of cloud cover. With greater temperatures there will be more energy engaged in the evaporation and transpiration of water. Greater precipitation leads to greater cloud cover, subsequently, reducing the amount of direct sunlight the surface receives. It is in fact a negative feedback not positive.


Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have plateaued and are beginning to decrease. This evidence suggests that the permafrost methane emissions feedback is non-existent.


Further flaws in the IPCC literature is that there is a failure to account for warming due to the urban heat island effect. The majority of weather monitoring stations are positioned in areas of urban activity. A small town of 1000 inhabitant can warm a region by 2 degrees Celsius. In a related matter there has been a decrease in weather stations used to monitor temperatures from a peak of 6000 in the 1970's to now where only 1500 are in commission. The omitted weather stations were in areas of typically little urban activity and high altitudes.


Increased global mean temperatures due to human activity:


Since the anthroposphere only accounts for 4% of the total flux of CO2. That is 15.52ppm out of the 388pmm.


I am using the IPCC's method of calculation and an increase of carbon dioxide level from the pre industrial era to achieve the maximum upper limit of human caused mean global temperature increase.


dF=5.35*ln((295+15.52)/295)= 0.27 W/(m^2)
dT=0.31*3.1*0.27= 0.25 Kelvin


From this calculation we can deduce the maximum temperature increase due to human interference in the system is 0.25 degrees Celsius (Kelvin) over a period of 300 years of industrial activity. This value is not even statistically significant. This is a perfect time to indicate that 300 years ago we were in the middle of a little ice age. It is logical to assume that the earth will increase in temperatures after an ice age.


From the 1880's to now (after 100 years of warming from the minimum of the little ice age) there has been 0.6 degree Celsius warming of the earth's climate. The maximum we account is 0.25 of total increase from the 1700's.


IPCC has stated that humans could not have an effect on the climate up until the 1980's onwards. There has been a 0.4 degrees Celsius warming from the 1980's up until 1998. 1998 onwards, a cooling trend has been observed.


But lets calculate the minimum effect could have had on the global temperatures. Still using the IPCC calculations.


dF= 5.35*ln(355.52/340)= 0.23 W/(m^2)
dT= 0.31*3.1*0.23 = 0.22 Kelvin.


How much warming from 1980's to 1998 was caused by carbon dioxide?


dF=5.35*ln(380/340)=0.238 W/(m^2)
dT=0.31*3.1*0.238= 0.228 Kelvin.


This entails that by using the IPCC model, one third of the 1980 to 1998 warming period can be attributed to emissions from the environment. To note, there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 30 years and the temperatures have been decreasing for the last 8 ~ 10 years.


Now using the correct calculation method of human contribution in the same period.


dF=1.78*ln(355.52/340)= 0.079 W/(m^2)
dT= 0.24*1.75*0.079= 0.033 Kelvin


The correct value is not statistically significant. Humans have had no significant effect on mean global temperatures.


Total warming due to carbon dioxide in the period.


dF= 1.78*ln(380/340)= 0.197 W/(m^2)
dT= 0.24*1.75*0.197= 0.08314 Kelvin


Once again insignificant.


Calculation of warming due to carbon dioxide concentrations from pre-industrial era to now:


The increase of mean global temperatures of the last 300 years was in the magnitude of 1 to 1.5 Kelvin.


dF=1.78*ln(388/295)= 0.48 W/(m^2)
dT=0.24*1.75*0.48= 0.2016 Kelvin


The warming of the last 300 years due to carbon dioxide is 0.2016 Kelvin. Carbon dioxide accounts for one fifth to one seventh of the warming in this duration. The increase of temperature over this period due to natural emissions of carbon dioxide is 0.2016 – 0.033 = 0.1686 Kelvin. The natural contribution of warming due to carbon dioxide emissions are 5.1 times greater than the human contribution. Other factors than carbon dioxide is driving the climate.


Final Remarks:


From these quick calculations we can deduce that the human contribution to warming of mean global temperatures is insignificant. When comparing today's warming to the whole of geological history we can reason that today's temperature anomalies are well within the climate's natural variability. The recent anomalies continue to be within the climate's observed natural variability of the last ten thousand and last 2000 years. The medieval warm period which lasted 300 years and had a mean global temperature of 2 Kelvin greater than today is a prime example. Humans could not of had an effect during that period.


Nothing of importance is occurring at this current point in time.


I will strive to find and explain the derivation of the climate sensitivity factors, which is another way of calculating the forcing due to carbon dioxide concentrations. There is another way using Stefan Boltzman equations and Planks's derivations.

 

[Agent Intellect]

A couple more websites that may be of interest to people on both sides of the issue:


GISS Surface temperature analysis.

"Cold Facts on Global Warming" (says a lot of the same stuff ProxyAmenRa was talking about)


One thing that always sticks with me, though, is the correlation between CO2 ppm and temperature:

(1) (2) (3)


While correlation is not proof of causation, it's difficult not to make a connection (although it's also possible that the warming causes the CO2 rise).

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

(1) (2) (3)


While correlation is not proof of causation, it's difficult not to make a connection (although it's also possible that the warming causes the CO2 rise).

An important thing to notice about this graph is that carbon dioxide concentration lag temperature by 400 to 800 years. At the end of the graph towards 0 years before present the temperature plateaus while carbon dioxide concentrations increase. The correlation breaks down. That period last for ten thousand years.

As inferred by my previous post the effects of radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide concentrations on temperature in minimal.

---

I made a small mistake in my previous post it is not the IPCC 1995 calculation figures it is the IPCC 2007 paper's calculation figures. Not really a big deal but it still needs to be corrected.

 

[Zwaintsai]

Spoiler

Global warming is real. Just so that there's no actual confusion about the matter.

 

[RobdoR]

Not being a climate expert, I have to rely on my common sense when I whine about global warming hype. And that goes something like this:

1. Will a slight increase in global temperature really cause any death and destruction? Is there any measurable proof of that? Seems to me like the earth's chaotic dynamic climate is able to adjust fairly easily to massive changes (volcanoes anyone?).

2. Why do we think we can predict the weather in 50 years when we can't predict it more than a week out?

3. Why don't we focus on the real environmental problems that we know we can affect like farm land, water management, erosion, and plastic waste?

4. Do we really think we can save the climate by buying a shiny new electric car and installing a solar panel on the roof? Or do we just want an excuse?

 

[NothingTodo]

I see all this about temperature and stuff. But what about the ozone layer being broken? Is that even considered global warming?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I see all this about temperature and stuff. But what about the ozone layer being broken? Is that even considered global warming?

The ozone layer typically reflects, absorbs and refracts 97 - 99%, high band, ultra violet radiation. The hole in the ozone layer is a naturally occurring phenomena.

Twenty years ago there was a belief in the public arena that human emissions of CFCs were degrading the ozone layer and subsequently expanding the the ozone hole of the antarctic. The foundation of this belief was based on mostly anecdotal evidence. This thought in public space lead to the creation of the montreal protocol.

Recent studies published in the science arena link a correlation to the size of the hole to the levels of cosmic radiation. One by Lu in 2008. The size of the hole over the antarctic was observed during two 11 year solar cycles and was found to be larger during the 11 year solar maximum. The size of the hole decreased as cosmic radiation decreased. This does not disprove the hypothesis of CFCs causing degradation.

A different report released in 2006 study the interaction of CFCs and the photolytic reaction process found that the rate of the degradation was six times less than previously concluded in the 1980's. This report opens debate on whether or not CFCs account for a large proportion degradation.

To answer your question; the size of the ozone hole has been observed increasing and decreasing over the last 20 years when CFCs have been banned. This leads one to think (as in I only) that the ozone hole has little to do with global warming.

There has been papers released proposing a link to recent global warming and cooling to the use and banning of CFCs and the ozone hole. Since, these paper contradict the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced warming there has not been much mention or coverage in the main stream media. This hypothesis breaks down when in comparison to geological history. Plus it is pretty hard to tax something that has already been banned and out of use.

You can read a range of opinions here:

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/03/correlation-between-cosmic-rays-and-ozone-depletion/

 

[lafmeche]

Not being a climate expert, I have to rely on my common sense when I whine about global warming hype. And that goes something like this:

1. Will a slight increase in global temperature really cause any death and destruction? Is there any measurable proof of that? Seems to me like the earth's chaotic dynamic climate is able to adjust fairly easily to massive changes (volcanoes anyone?).

We don't know for sure, but my understanding is that the temperature will change at different rates in different parts of the world. Bigger differences in temperatures may cause much bigger swings in weather conditions. I've never looked into it in detail, though.

2. Why do we think we can predict the weather in 50 years when we can't predict it more than a week out?

You're right; we really can't, but not because of the reason you're thinking. Knowing that it's going to rain on Saturday is very different from tracking and predicting average temperatures over tens/thousands/millions of years.

3. Why don't we focus on the real environmental problems that we know we can affect like farm land, water management, erosion, and plastic waste?

Those are problems that we should be dealing with, but that doesn't mean we should ignore other problems (or potential problems). We have the resources to deal with all of them, if people can undo their rectal-cranial inversions.

4. Do we really think we can save the climate by buying a shiny new electric car and installing a solar panel on the roof? Or do we just want an excuse?

Not exactly. A lot of people that buy those things ARE just making themselves feel better, but if we mastered clean energy of whatever form and made electric vehicles well enough to replace our current options, we'd be able to eliminate a huge portion of our bad emissions in the course of 20-50 years.

 

[Thoughtful]

Global Warming, is it real or not?
Answer: Irrelevant

Green tech is good period, both ecologically and economically. pollution, whether or not it causes climate change or global warming, is still bad. Why Pour all this research money into listing the reasons why pollution is bad, and then more to argue with those who's research (however credible it may be) disagrees? do we really need to be pouring all this money into arguments? who ever heard of someone winning argument? why not just buy solar panels and plant trees with the argument money? makes more sense if you ask me.

 

[fullerene]

YouTube- Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

as far as im concerned, there is no evidence that the earth is still warming, and it is not part of a cycle of warming and cooling.
i mean, there are websites that just say "its warming" but i would like to see one listed with how they determined this.

in recent news:
http://wallstreetpit.com/11089-us-temperatures-cooling-at-striking-rate

 

[pjoa09]

The world is going to warm up, we will run out of water, die, and that's something awesome.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The world is going to warm up, we will run out of water, die, and that's something awesome.

Earth warms ---> More precipitation (transpiration and evaporation) ---> More rain in general ---> We don't run out of water ---> Politicians ban fossil fuels ---> we all die.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I live in Michigan, I'm surrounded by fresh water. Everyone living in deserts, or getting their water from a river, are going to run out and die.

 

[pjoa09]

Earth warms ---> More precipitation (transpiration and evaporation) ---> More rain in general ---> We don't run out of water ---> Politicians ban fossil fuels ---> we all die.

Well the water that comes back isnt usable is it?
Yeah I love fuel. I don't see any alternative to the roaring sounds of engines.

 

[Cogwulf]

Well the water that comes back isnt usable is it?
Yeah I love fuel. I don't see any alternative to the roaring sounds of engines.

Whisper quiet electric engines are going to save the planet...

oh.

 

[pjoa09]

Whisper quiet electric engines are going to save the planet...

oh.

that were roaring when nickel was being dug out of quarries and dams were gushing tons of gallons of water.

HYBRID: Seriously Pointless.

Elecric: Are you Serious?

 

[Cogwulf]

that were roaring when nickel was being dug out of quarries and dams were gushing tons of gallons of water.

HYBRID: Seriously Pointless.

Elecric: Are you Serious?

hence the "oh"

 

[asmit127]

I have a question for all the believers who "religiously" turn everything off in their homes, it's called New York. Hundreds of skyscrapers with lights on in the whole building (not only the outside ones) just to look pretty to tourists?

When someone turns them all off I'll believe global warming is real and our fault, until then it's beyond a joke to preach to individuals when installing some motion sensors in these buildings would do so much more.

 

[intuitivet]

Well, the ICCP (I think) have been monitoring global warming and have many graphs showing it's link to climate change. Alot of the people claiming it isn't real are members of industries who would have to change their policies and lose money to combat it. Therefore their opinions on the matter are entirely biased.
Very few scientists (who aren't paid to disagree) disagree with global warming, as there's so much evidence supporting it.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Well, the ICCP (I think) have been monitoring global warming and have many graphs showing it's link to climate change. Alot of the people claiming it isn't real are members of industries who would have to change their policies and lose money to combat it. Therefore their opinions on the matter are entirely biased.
Very few scientists (who aren't paid to disagree) disagree with global warming, as there's so much evidence supporting it.

Accusations of the "other side" being payed to state a point of view is creating a straw man argument.

Is it really that wrong of an individual or industry placating a point of view even though they have financial investment in that area? Hell, no. I would do the same. Individuals or firms on both sides have engaged in this behavior.

There is not "so much" evidence to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Well, apart from the urban heat island effect. It is a common mistake to look at a graph which has two data plots, one carbon dioxide concentration, the other mean global temperatures over the last 100 years and to conclude there must be a correlation that the CO2 increase must be causing the warming. This is called making conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. I am going to degrade my response by referring to what my illiterate friend commonly states 'I calls it as I sees it. And that is bollocks!'

The sun's output plateaued in the early 80s and the earth continued to warm until 2001. To look at the millions of variables that govern the climatic system and choose one item that has been increasing in conjunction to be the soul perpetrator is ludicrous. Correlation need not imply causation and visa versa.

This debate is not about environmental degradation, ground and air pollution, resource management, ice caps, polar bears, sea level rise, glaciers and abnormal weather events such as storms and abnormally hot or cold periods. This debate is about climate sensitivity, radiative forcing and feedback mechanisms in relations to concentrations of carbon dioxide.

The most comprehensive studies into radiative forcing, climate sensitivity and feedback mechanisms have at best a 95% error margin and maximum r^2 values of 0.66. If I were making conclusions in such situations I would not have a job for a long period of time.

In these studies climate sensitivity ranges from 0.24 to 0.75, feedback factor ranges from 1.75 to 3.1 and forcing ranges from 1.75*ln(C/Ci) to 6.28*ln(C/Ci).

The most thorough study into this over a 20 year period, yet highly disputed (review process at work), 'The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment' by Lindzen et al. 2008 concluded in stating that the cloud albedo feedback is slightly net negative or neutral. This conclusion is backed by a 5 year study, Piers et al. 2005. Where as the IPCC has a net positive feedback of 0.80 W/(m^2). It does not take a genius to draw the conclusion that cloud albedo feedback would be neutral.

Most empirical experiments concluded in a slight trend towards low climate sensitivity but do not rule out the possibility of high due to the uncertainty.

Warming due to a doubling of CO2 have been predicted as low as the unlikely 0.51 Kelvin. The generally accepted ranged is 1 to 4.1 Kelvin due to a doubling of CO2.

The only conclusion we can reach at this current point in time is that we do not know.


---

If you would like to rely on anecdotal evidence than you may want to include the 4.5 billion years of geological history. I guarantee you there has been 4.5 billion years of climate change. When comparing today's temperature anomalies to the past you can deduce that the warming of recent years in nothing out of the ordinary. Or maybe it is that todays anomalies are in fact out of the ordinary because great shifts in climate has not occurred in the last 10000 years. This interglacial period is going to end sometime.

---

One last thing I must state before I sleep (11:30 pm here) is that predictions of dire circumstances resulting from temperature increase are unsubstantiated. If any individuals state that a climatic even is caused by an increase of CO2 concentrations they are grossly negligent or are committing fraud. What they can state is their hypothesis about such climatic event in relations to an increase of temperature.

 

[intuitivet]

Accusations of the "other side" being payed to state a point of view is creating a straw man argument.

Is it really that wrong of an individual or industry placating a point of view even though they have financial investment in that area? Hell, no. I would do the same. Individuals or firms on both sides have engaged in this behavior.

There is not "so much" evidence to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Well, apart from the urban heat island effect. It is a common mistake to look at a graph which has two data plots, one carbon dioxide concentration, the other mean global temperatures over the last 100 years and to conclude there must be a correlation that the CO2 increase must be causing the warming. This is called making conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. I am going to degrade my response by referring to what my illiterate friend commonly states 'I calls it as I sees it. And that is bollocks!'

The sun's output plateaued in the early 80s and the earth continued to warm until 2001. To look at the millions of variables that govern the climatic system and choose one item that has been increasing in conjunction to be the soul perpetrator is ludicrous. Correlation need not imply causation and visa versa.

This debate is not about environmental degradation, ground and air pollution, resource management, ice caps, polar bears, sea level rise, glaciers and abnormal weather events such as storms and abnormally hot or cold periods. This debate is about climate sensitivity, radiative forcing and feedback mechanisms in relations to concentrations of carbon dioxide.

The most comprehensive studies into radiative forcing, climate sensitivity and feedback mechanisms have at best a 95% error margin and maximum r^2 values of 0.66. If I were making conclusions in such situations I would not have a job for a long period of time.

In these studies climate sensitivity ranges from 0.24 to 0.75, feedback factor ranges from 1.75 to 3.1 and forcing ranges from 1.75*ln(C/Ci) to 6.28*ln(C/Ci).

The most thorough study into this over a 20 year period, yet highly disputed (review process at work), 'The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment' by Lindzen et al. 2008 concluded in stating that the cloud albedo feedback is slightly net negative or neutral. This conclusion is backed by a 5 year study, Piers et al. 2005. Where as the IPCC has a net positive feedback of 0.80 W/(m^2). It does not take a genius to draw the conclusion that cloud albedo feedback would be neutral.

Most empirical experiments concluded in a slight trend towards low climate sensitivity but do not rule out the possibility of high due to the uncertainty.

Warming due to a doubling of CO2 have been predicted as low as the unlikely 0.51 Kelvin. The generally accepted ranged is 1 to 4.1 Kelvin due to a doubling of CO2.

The only conclusive fact we can reach at this current point in time is that we do not know.


---

If you would like to rely on anecdotal evidence than you may want to include the 4.5 billion years of geological history. I guarantee you there has been 4.5 billion years of climate change. When comparing today's temperature anomalies to the past you can deduce that the warming of recent years in nothing out of the ordinary. Or maybe it is that todays anomalies are in fact out of the ordinary because great shifts in climate has not occurred in the last 10000 years. This interglacial period is going to end sometime.

---

One last thing I must state before I sleep (11:30 pm here) is that predictions of dire circumstances resulting from temperature increase are unsubstantiated. If any individuals state that a climatic even is caused by an increase of CO2 concentrations they are grossly negligent or are committing fraud. What they can state is their hypothesis about such climatic event in relations to an increase of temperature.

I never said it was wrong of them to do so, only that it gave them a biased view on the matter.
Also, I was talking about the evidence presented, which I admit is largely correlational and cannot prove cause and effect. However, there is at least that sort of evidence for global warming, whereas there is far less evidence against it.

 

[Cogwulf]

That's just reminded me, in a lecture the other day, the lecturer showed us as a side note a chart plotting the number of natural disasters over the past 100 years and with atmospheric CO2 concentrations plotted over it, and then claimed this to be evidence of global warming.
Not only was he wrong to say this, but the chart itself was flawed to the extent that even a complete idiot should have noticed something wrong. Around the region of 50 years ago, the chart was showing about 1 or 2 disasters per year, and then for the year 2000, 500 disasters. So apparently there are 500 times more natural disasters every year now than there were a few decades ago

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I never said it was wrong of them to do so, only that it gave them a biased view on the matter.
Also, I was talking about the evidence presented, which I admit is largely correlational and cannot prove cause and effect. However, there is at least that sort of evidence for global warming, whereas there is far less evidence against it.

What evidence would that be?

The main reason why I included myself in this debate is because people around me have confused evidence with media exposure. In Australia until recently the presentation of this issue has been of only one side. I would not know what the situation is else where in the world. The information presented to people through the main stream media is that of Al Gore's inherently flawed movie, melting ice caps and a maraud of under qualified special guest speakers to hype fear of unsubstantiated and unsolicited impending doom. People are mistaking media exposure and emotions for evidence. You may not be engaging in this behavior but many people are.

The residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from 7 to 15 years. This fact allows us time to conduct more thorough studies into the magnitude of climate sensitivity and feedback mechanism because if a study without a doubt proves that climate sensitivity is high it will only take 7 to 15 years to return the carbon cycle to its natural flux. However, this would not be a conclusive reason why we should mitigate our output of emissions. The climatic system is chaotic, there is no way in determining what circumstances would result. It would make more economic sense to adapt to climate change rather than attempting to prevent change from occurring.

Postulating about potential doom scenarios is pure and simple mental masturbation.

 

[intuitivet]

What evidence would that be?

The main reason why I included myself in this debate is because people around me have confused evidence with media exposure. In Australia until recently the presentation of this issue has been of only one side. I would not know what the situation is else where in the world. The information presented to people through the main stream media is that of Al Gore's inherently flawed movie, melting ice caps and a maraud of under qualified special guest speakers to hype fear of unsubstantiated and unsolicited impending doom. People are mistaking media exposure and emotions for evidence. You may not be engaging in this behavior but many people are.

The residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from 7 to 15 years. This fact allows us time to conduct more thorough studies into the magnitude of climate sensitivity and feedback mechanism because if a study without a doubt proves that climate sensitivity is high it will only take 7 to 15 years to return the carbon cycle to its natural flux. However, this would not be a conclusive reason why we should mitigate our output of emissions. The climatic system is chaotic, there is no way in determining what circumstances would result. It would make more economic sense to adapt to climate change rather than attempting to prevent change from occurring.

Postulating about potential doom scenarios is pure and simple mental masturbation.

Ah I had to do alot of research into it for a project, not looking at media coverage but correlations (which, as I mentioned before, I know aren't perfect) and investigations by scientists, frozen isotopes, dendroclimatology and such. Is there alot of evidence against it?

 

[fullerene]

Ah I had to do alot of research into it for a project, not looking at media coverage but correlations (which, as I mentioned before, I know aren't perfect) and investigations by scientists, frozen isotopes, dendroclimatology and such. Is there alot of evidence against it?

Check the first page, actually... AI posted an interesting graph showing the correlation between CO2 and temperatures. Proxy (I think it was?) pointed out that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature by several hundred years. Given that, it almost appears as if a rise/fall in temperatures is what causes the CO2 levels to vary.

 

[Mary]

I think that type of science that has people deleting the data so other people can not run their own calculations on it needs to be watched very carefully. I think there are as many as 30k scientist out there who are very againt this supposed 'manmade global warming'. And it doesn't help that this winter has been very cold..

 

[Mary]

Check the first page, actually... AI posted an interesting graph showing the correlation between CO2 and temperatures. Proxy (I think it was?) pointed out that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature by several hundred years. Given that, it almost appears as if a rise/fall in temperatures is what causes the CO2 levels to vary.

Hmm.. That is very interesting..
Anyway, I think nuclear power is the way to go. At least it sounds more fun than a carbon plant or solar panels or wind turbines.. IT'S NUCLEAR!