Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is

[room305]

"it is now believed that 1934 was probably the hottest year on record"

Factcheck required; I think this quote may well be misleading, though I am open to correction. I googled it and it appears that this statistic relates only to the weather in the 'lower 48' United States - not global average temperature and in particular not polar regions.

The correction from 2005 to 1934 directly corresponds to the dataset Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. However, there are plenty of other major flaws with Gore's film. He has already freely admitted to the necessity of using exaggeration to provoke a motivated response.

Gore shows a chart purporting to be actual temperatures since the Civil War. (Note that the film doesn’t expose the dependent axis. If he did it would emphasize how small the changes in temperature were.) Gore states: “These are actual measurements of atmospheric temperature since our civil war. In any given year it might look like it’s going down, but the overall trend is extremely clear. In recent years it is uninterrupted and it is intensifying. In fact, if you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record, they have all occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was 2005.“
He can be forgiven for having been misled by a close advisor, Dr. James Hansen who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Hansen has recently been forced to admit that errors were made in correcting raw data and that the hottest year was 1934. Here is the new ranking: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

For a detailed critique of the abundant flaws in this movie and the above quote, this link is very interesting.

 

[annR]

I'm not a scientist and I cannot follow who has the strongest scientific argument. However if I look around at human's impact on the planet I don't really need much persuasion that we are changing the climate. We have altered the entire planet in an extreme way in a very short space of time. We are deforesting it and overfishing the oceans, burying our tons of rubbish, polluting the air, land, rivers, lakes and sea. We have majorly altered and often destroyed ecosystems nearly everywhere. It's not that much of a leap for me to believe that we are also changing the climate. To be honest I don't really care either, anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing in my book.

 

[ubiquitous]

I'm not a scientist and I cannot follow who has the strongest scientific argument. However if I look around at human's impact on the planet I don't really need much persuasion that we are changing the climate. We have altered the entire planet in an extreme way in a very short space of time. We are deforesting it and overfishing the oceans, burying our tons of rubbish, polluting the air, land, rivers, lakes and sea. We have majorly altered and often destroyed ecosystems nearly everywhere. It's not that much of a leap for me to believe that we are also changing the climate. To be honest I don't really care either, anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing in my book.

Emotion has unfortunately played a big role in generating the current climate change hysteria, usually at the expense of hard facts, analysis and (sometimes) common sense. Of course pollution, overfishing and deforestation are to be condemned. However despite what you say, it is a massive (and imho unsustainable) leap of faith to conclude for example that overfishing or landfills are creating global warming. You might as well try to argue that there is a direct link between drunkedness or petty crime and mass murder.

The "anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing" apologia for the global warming hysteria is all very well in itself until you remember that at least some "anti global warming" initiatives are themselves causing deforestation and other environmental damage. The ITV news on Monday night showed how farmers in Indonesia and other countries are clearfelling large areas of rainforest so that they can grow biofuels, in response to the West's demands for "ecofriendly" fuels. I could go on...

 

[ubiquitous]

posted in error

 

[room305]

The "anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing" apologia for the global warming hysteria is all very well in itself until you remember that at least some "anti global warming" initiatives are themselves causing deforestation and other environmental damage. The ITV news on Monday night showed how farmers in Indonesia and other countries are clearfelling large areas of rainforest so that they can grow biofuels, in response to the West's demands for "ecofriendly" fuels. I could go on...

Well said. I think the "well it's not going to cause harm to switch to a *greener* or more *sustainable* lifestyle" argument needs to be challenged. A lot of green policies seem to be based around a very idealistic notion of subsistence living. The reality is much different and the benefits that we in the West have enjoyed from industrialisation should not be denied to Asia and Africa.

People also need to think more clearly about what being "green" or living a "sustainable" lifestyle really means (both of which I wholeheartedly support). Anyone who imagines it involves using corn-based ethanol instead of petroleum or buying a brand new Toyota Prius needs to wake up.

 

[annR]

course pollution, overfishing and deforestation are to be condemned. However despite what you say, it is a massive (and imho unsustainable) leap of faith to conclude for example that overfishing or landfills are creating global warming

Of course neither of those things by themselves would create global warming. But if you were to take the entire effect that humans have had on the planet since the industrial age, and the sheer scale of our continuing impact, I don't think it's such a big leap of faith for a non scientist like myself to make. Are you a scientist?

The "anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing" apologia for the global warming hysteria is all very well in itself until you remember that at least some "anti global warming" initiatives are themselves causing deforestation and other environmental damage. The ITV news on Monday night showed how farmers in Indonesia and other countries are clearfelling large areas of rainforest so that they can grow biofuels, in response to the West's demands for "ecofriendly" fuels. I could go on...

Yes I'm sure you could go on and cite all the reasons why we shouldn't be doing anything to clean up. You refer to apologia for the global warming hysteria. I view a lot of the cynicism as apologia for not bothering to do anything at all, as this is the only thing being proposed, which I don't agree with. Do you think we should do anything at all then, or just continue the way we are?

A lot of green policies seem to be based around a very idealistic notion of subsistence living. The reality is much different and the benefits that we in the West have enjoyed from industrialisation should not be denied to Asia and Africa.

Just because I think we should try harder does not mean I think we should be living at subsistence level, that is putting words in my mouth. If more research instead of cynicism had been put into it in the first place, our green policies would probably be a lot more sophisticated by now. I also did not imply that economic progress should be denied to developing nations. Again if more effort had been put into all this before we would have also figured out long ago how both we and developing nations can prosper in a more environmentally friendly way.

Ok so the replies to my 'green' post talk about being emotional, well meaning but ultimately destructive, promoting subsistence living, and wanting to deny developing countries their progress. I suppose this thread was started by someone who thought green initiatives are completely pointless so I shouldn't be surprised at the tone of the rest of the discussion. Can I ask, are there any environmental scientists here or anyone with enough expertise to actually understand the evidence or lack thereof?

 

[ubiquitous]

Of course neither of those things by themselves would create global warming. But if you were to take the entire effect that humans have had on the planet since the industrial age, and the sheer scale of our continuing impact, I don't think it's such a big leap of faith for a non scientist like myself to make.

Another poster addressed this question already in this discussion, far better than I ever could

Planet earth is over 4.5 billion years old.

Do you really believe human activity over the past 100 years is having such a drastic effect. Are we conceited enough to believe we are this powerful.

Green house gases such as co2 amount to 0.038% of the earths atmosphere and this figure has been been much higher in the past ( as in pre history ) .

Yes I'm sure you could go on and cite all the reasons why we shouldn't be doing anything to clean up. You refer to apologia for the global warming hysteria. I view a lot of the cynicism as apologia for not bothering to do anything at all, as this is the only thing being proposed, which I don't agree with. Do you think we should do anything at all then, or just continue the way we are? Why is cleaning up after ourselves such an difficult notion for people to deal with?

With respect, this is nonsense, and offensive nonsense at that. You are trying to slur those of us who don't agree with you, in relation to global warming hysteria, by claiming that we don't care about the environment. You should only have to look at the record of someone like David Bellamy who has dedicated his working life to environmentalism, to realise that environmentalism and scepticism of global warming are not mutually exclusive.

 

[room305]

Of course neither of those things by themselves would create global warming. But if you were to take the entire effect that humans have had on the planet since the industrial age, and the sheer scale of our continuing impact, I don't think it's such a big leap of faith for a non scientist like myself to make. Are you a scientist?

Making leaps of faith is precisely what scientists should not be doing. I cannot categorically say that global warming theory is bunk, but I am confident that nobody else is sure either. However, it would appear that the people behind the politicized global warming movement have decided that the theory of man-made global warming is beyond criticism and actively shout down anyone who contradicts this. This is unscientific and I question their motivation for behaving in such a manner.

Yes I'm sure you could go on and cite all the reasons why we shouldn't be doing anything to clean up. You refer to apologia for the global warming hysteria. I view a lot of the cynicism as apologia for not bothering to do anything at all, as this is the only thing being proposed, which I don't agree with. Do you think we should do anything at all then, or just continue the way we are?

You are setting up a strawman argument here. I am sceptical about man-made global warming, I never suggested it does not matter if we destroy the environment. Natural resources are finite, it behoves us to use them as efficiently as we can. The ecosystem upon which we ourselves and all life relies upon is both incredibly complex and often quite fragile. We should strive neither to destroy its beauty or its many remarkable lifeforms of which we are one.

However, this is at least an ocean's depth away from the Church of Al Gore, which maintains with monstrous egotism, that mankind can regulate the temperature of a four and half billion year old planet by remembering to switch off the lights when we leave a room.

Just because I think we should try harder does not mean I think we should be living at subsistence level, that is putting words in my mouth. If more research instead of cynicism had been put into it in the first place, our green policies would probably be a lot more sophisticated by now. I also did not imply that economic progress should be denied to developing nations. Again if more effort had been put into all this before we would have also figured out long ago how both we and developing nations can prosper in a more environmentally friendly way.

I didn't mean to imply that greens wish to have everyone living at subsistence level, just that a romanticism of the life it entails suffuses their policies. Hence why they might oppose the setting up of a Nike 'sweatshop' in Cambodia but favour the subsidising of small farms in the same region.

Ok so the replies to my 'green' post talk about being emotional, well meaning but ultimately destructive, promoting subsistence living, and wanting to deny developing countries their progress. I suppose this thread was started by someone who thought green initiatives are completely pointless so I shouldn't be surprised at the tone of the rest of the discussion. Can I ask, are there any environmental scientists here or anyone with enough expertise to actually understand the evidence or lack thereof?

I am a scientist but not an environmental one. I've only met one scientist working in the area of global warming and he was convinced that we are seeing a warming cycle beyond the usual fluctuations based on ice core data from the North pole.

However, what alarms me about the theory is the most basic and fallacious of logical mistakes that seems to permeate it. Cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc - to assume that correlation implies causation. If a dataset shows that a rise in CO2 correlates with a rise in temperature, this in no way proves that the temperature rise was caused by the rise in CO2 or that a subsequent increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature. This is a fairly basic scientific error - secondary school level stuff. Yet worryingly it appears to be practically the basis of Gore's movie. Nor have I heard anything from anyone within the movement that would lead me to believe they have recognised the error, or why it might not be relevant in this instance.

 

[extopia]

I've only met one scientist working in the area of global warming and he was convinced that we are seeing a warming cycle beyond the usual fluctuations based on ice core data from the North pole.

Not a very big sample of course, but 100% in the anthropogenic camp then?

This is a fairly basic scientific error - secondary school level stuff. Yet worryingly it appears to be practically the basis of Gore's movie. Nor have I heard anything from anyone within the movement that would lead me to believe they have recognised the error, or why it might not be relevant in this instance.

Since when is the global warming thesis the sole preserve of Al Gore? With respect, whether his movie is overly populist or logically flawed (and I've no idea whether it is or not) is irrelevant, surely?

Can we really dismiss the IPCC as a "politicised global warming movement"? The levels of consensus among scientists working in this area should be taken seriously surely? The oft-quoted argument that such scientists are afraid to "buck" the "establishment" is insulting to scientists everywhere, I would imagine.

Ultimately, non-scientists, including governments, other policy makers, and the general public, can either trust the science, and the bodies that collate and review scientific findings, or dismiss the whole thing as politicised conspiracy bunkum.

Believe me, I realise that it's possible that billions of people will ignore the science. There are many examples of such delusion in the history of human experience, religion being of course the prime example.

But I suspect that anthropogenic global warming theory can be more robustly defended than the widely believed but ultimately indefensible theories that have been foisted on us for countless generations by druids, creationists and other zealots, for instance.

 

[ubiquitous]

Can we really dismiss the IPCC as a "politicised global warming movement"? The levels of consensus among scientists working in this area should be taken seriously surely? The oft-quoted argument that such scientists are afraid to "buck" the "establishment" is insulting to scientists everywhere, I would imagine.

Ultimately, non-scientists, including governments, other policy makers, and the general public, can either trust the science, and the bodies that collate and review scientific findings, or dismiss the whole thing as politicised conspiracy bunkum.

The same could have been said a decade ago about the then impending "millennium bug" crisis.

 

[michaelm]

I've only met one scientist working in the area of global warming and he was convinced that we are seeing a warming cycle beyond the usual fluctuations based on ice core data from the North pole.

However, what alarms me about the theory is the most basic and fallacious of logical mistakes that seems to permeate it. Cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc - to assume that correlation implies causation. If a dataset shows that a rise in CO2 correlates with a rise in temperature, this in no way proves that the temperature rise was caused by the rise in CO2 or that a subsequent increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature.

Does the ice core data not in fact show that increases in CO2 levels lag circa 400 years behind rises in temperature? Thus suggesting that it's temperature driving CO2 rather than the other way around.

 

[room305]

Does the ice core data not in fact show that increases in CO2 levels lag circa 400 years behind rises in temperature? Thus suggesting that it's temperature driving CO2 rather than the other way around.

He never actually ventured an opinion on the cause of the warming period he believed we were entering. This was a few years ago and there wasn't quite the same hoopla about CO2, although people were starting to become aware of the issue. I'd love to meet him again to see if he has refined his view in any way.

If I remember correctly, he looked at ice core samples that were millions of years old and based on the melting and refreezing of the ice they could posit in what periods the Earth was gradually getting warmer or cooler. They could compare this with their own measures of how much the ice was melting now and from this he came to the conclusion that we were entering a period of warming that would greatly exceed any of the previous warming periods in recent history.

Incidentally, it is always wrong to look at two isolated variables that are correlated and presume causation. Imagine I could show a correlation between an increase in the number of monuments built in Dublin and a decline in the overall crime rate. Then I could argue that we should build ever greater numbers of monuments to make the city safer. However, you also looked at the data and interpreted it differently, noticing that an increase in the number of monuments built followed a decline in the overall crime rate with a lag. Thus you would say, it was the decline in crime that prompted local authorities to build new monuments. In all likelihood most people would assume we were bonkers.

I believe I read a similar argument ridiculing global warming by showing that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere almost directly correlated with a decline in worldwide pirate activity.

 

[diarmuidc]

Out of curosity has anyone here read the [broken link removed]Third and Fourth Assessment Reports?

And secondly of all the sceptics here, (who I assume are not climatologists, correct me if I am wrong) where or from whom are you taking you scientific view points?

 

[ubiquitous]

And secondly of all the sceptics here, (who I assume are not climatologists, correct me if I am wrong) where or from whom are you taking you scientific view points?

Does one have to be an IT technologist to have an opinion on the Millennium Bug?

 

[diarmuidc]

Does one have to be an IT technologist to have an opinion on the Millennium Bug?

Well to diagnose if one exists in a piece of software you do.
You can say that you don't believe that one exists but your credibility might not be too high if you don't know jack about software

 

[Guest127]

I thought all the emissions from cars/power stations etc were sending up particles that were blocking heat from entering the earths atmosphere. but maybe thats too simple. sort of a catch 22 situation.

 

[room305]

Out of curosity has anyone here read the [broken link removed]Third and Fourth Assessment Reports?

Not the entire reports - I have a life to live! I have read the summaries however (not ideal I know) and what always strikes me is two things

(1) Temperature comparisons are almost always made against very near term data, rarely earlier than 1750. This doesn't seem long enough when you are making claims that the warming occuring is unprecedented in the planet's history.

(2) Neither the temperature rise nor the sea level rise predictions point to the "immediate and irreversible" consequences outlined by the likes of Al Gore (I use him as a useful figurehead for the more extreme views on climate change). Most of the predictions are charted out decades or even one hundred years away, making the exercise pointless even if their models are accurate, because we'll run out of oil long before this point.

And secondly of all the sceptics here, (who I assume are not climatologists, correct me if I am wrong) where or from whom are you taking you scientific view points?

I am definitely not a climatologist but feel compelled to comment on what is clearly a very politicized movement arguing that we block Asian and African industrialisation on the basis of the more extreme views of one theory on the cause of an observable climate change.

I find that http://www.realclimate.org is a good source but I rarely get very involved in the complex scientific issues. My main objection is with those who wish to use the possibility of anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to push a Marxist agenda.

Why for example can global warming only be tackled by governments introducing legislation? Why is the United States always cited as a barrier to progress when it produces less greenhouse gases per unit of oil consumed than almost any other industrialised nation? Why the support for bio-fuels (these produce just as much CO2 as petrol)? Why is it acceptable for wealthy global warming advocates to purchase "carbon credits" instead of making the same lifestyle changes they wish to enforce on others (an option denied to the less well-off)? What's wrong with just capturing CO2 as it is produced - say from coal fired electricity plants - and burying it?

 

[room305]

Well to diagnose if one exists in a piece of software you do.
You can say that you don't believe that one exists but your credibility might not be too high if you don't know jack about software

I am not aware of many global warming sceptics who deny the possibility that:

1. The Earth has been getting warmer in the past few decades.
2. The warming could be anthropogenic in nature.

However, many remain sceptical that:

1. Anybody is certain what is causing the Earth to get warmer.
2. It is warmer now and/or temperatures are rising faster than they ever have in the planet's history.
3. That this warming will continue indefinitely unless we reduce CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions.
4. The effects of a rise between 1 and 6 degrees Celsius in the global average temperature will be devastating for mankind.

 

[RMCF]

Another very interesting debate today on the subject on the Matt Cooper show.

Another cynic like myself had a great rant to an Irish minister, who didn't answer one single question properly that he was asked.

Like why they all have to fly to exotic locations like Bali, Rio etc for the Kyoto conferences? I guess its something to do with the first class flights and 5 star hotels in the sun !!

And the fact that since all the Kyoto conferences started, that global warming and emissions have got worse - so they do NOTHING to help.

And the fact that over 50% of ALL first class flights out of New York are taken by Government officials.

They all preach change, but continue to live the high life.

Hypocrites.

 

[room305]

Since when is the global warming thesis the sole preserve of Al Gore? With respect, whether his movie is overly populist or logically flawed (and I've no idea whether it is or not) is irrelevant, surely?

It's not his sole preserve but he is its champion. He has popularised the theory, on the basis of a movie with flaws and exaggerations few credible scientists would be willing to support. He is also a staggering hypocrite.

When people talk of an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of global warming, the possible extinction of the polar bear or the idea that we are very shortly moving into some irreversible feedback planet warming loop unless we immediately decrease our carbon dioxide output - all false by the way - they are usually basing this on Gore's movie.

Since I haven't heard any major criticism of Gore from within the global warming movement, I can only conclude that they consider him a suitable representative.

Can we really dismiss the IPCC as a "politicised global warming movement"? The levels of consensus among scientists working in this area should be taken seriously surely? The oft-quoted argument that such scientists are afraid to "buck" the "establishment" is insulting to scientists everywhere, I would imagine.

Let's be clear. The IPCC is absolutely a political advocacy body with a political agenda. That some scientists, or indeed even many scientists, may support their views does not automatically make them objective.

Many of Gore's 'truths' such as the "hockey stick" graph, the islanders supposedly evacuated from an island off New Zealand and many others have been proved false or have been thoroughly discredited. Despite this the IPCC was happy to jointly accept a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. This doesn't sound like the actions of an independent, objective panel of scientists investigating climate change.

If the panel is willing to accept someone who has admitted using exaggerated claims to advance his cause as their chief spokesperson, it tells me they care more about the message than scientific accuracy.

Ultimately, non-scientists, including governments, other policy makers, and the general public, can either trust the science, and the bodies that collate and review scientific findings, or dismiss the whole thing as politicised conspiracy bunkum.

Or the public can remember that doom-mongering and dire predictions of mankind's imminent demise happens at least once a decade and adopt a sceptical approach.

But I suspect that anthropogenic global warming theory can be more robustly defended than the widely believed but ultimately indefensible theories that have been foisted on us for countless generations by druids, creationists and other zealots, for instance.

You are indeed right to lump anthropogenic global warming theory in with such quackery.