Mythsquashing: Warmer Climes

[pysen78]

Hello, all!

This is an interesting topic, albeit an exhausting one. I usually don't engage in threads like this, but the good tone in this one makes me want to make exception.

The original post caused me to find this link that seems a good "bite-size" introduction to the 97-or-not discussion:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...um-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
Read it! it also has several relevant links within the text.

And if any reader is interested in such a thing: NASA has a list of more or less relevant organizations quoted as "buying into" the paradigm of anthropogenic global warming:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

My own personal view is that whether it's 97% or not isn't that relevant. The fact of the matter is that we have a scientific consensus. Even if it were a weak one, it will have to do, until something better comes along, to strengthen the scientific proofs, or disprove the whole lot. Science is still the best we've got to guide us.

I started out researching this subject a few years back as part of my Master thesis at university. I wrote on spatial planning, so this was only a fringe evidence for the setup of my thesis, but it was an eye-opener, and consumed many weeks of my studies. Back then ('07-'08) the climate debate wasn't in full swing, and it was easier to filter through the noise, to get at useful information. Now it's a different story.

Early on, financial interests with money in "old-tech" like oil and coal had the final word in most of media opinion, and Science was puttering along, doing what it does best without media attention.
Now, with the green sector growing stronger, and promises of of rises in GDP on account of silly "ecological" ventures with tax payers money, many governments and the like have gone from being sceptics to strong advocates of taking action. This is always a problem, when it comes to finding objective information. I see lots of one-sided arguments. Rarely do I see well balanced informative articles anymore.

A bit off topic:
Many professors and the like I've spoken to, takes the stance that anthropogenic climate change may or may not be the biggest challenge of our lifetime, but even if it is not, the measures taken to prevent it tends to mitigate many of the other certain adverse effects of our civilization have on the environment, like resource depletion. As long as that is the case, why "rock the boat"?
Food for thought, but also something to shine a light on if/when green-tech goes awry and adds to the other adverse effects in the name of lowering CO2 emissions.

Again, I'm impressed by how civil this thread is. Usually this subject wrecks friendships and causes all threads to come off the rails!

 

[Laurentius]

Climate change can't be accelerated by human activity. Climate change is a state of constant flux that the planet is in.

A particular part of the change in climate can be attributed to man, but not all. Is the wind generated by human activity? The intensity of the sun? The tidal changes?

Being more specific, are you talking about global warming in relation to CO2? If so, do you have evidence of a steep upwards climb in temperature now that China is building 3 coal powered electricity generators per week? A steep upwards climb during India's new industrial revolution? Or any steep incline in recent history?

What effects, if it exists, is this temperature increase having on the world? Are sea levels rising? Ice receding?

Sorry to be such a pedant... but I would like to know specifics. If global warming is happening and effecting the climate, what exactly is it doing?

Ok I will be more specific, the rate of change of global warming is increasing relative to the amount of greenhouse gasses that are being anthropogenically (and that includes agriculture) produced. Of course it is the sun driving it, but the change in the composition of the atmosphere is undeniably humanly generated and the effects are more rapid than anything seen in the fossil record.

 

[dewi]

Ok I will be more specific, the rate of change of global warming is increasing relative to the amount of greenhouse gasses that are being anthropogenically (and that includes agriculture) produced. Of course it is the sun driving it, but the change in the composition of the atmosphere is undeniably humanly generated and the effects are more rapid than anything seen in the fossil record.

Blimey, that's quite a statement. The problem is it isn't true.

Temperature hasn't increased for over 18 years, at all. Since the 1970s the overall temperature of the Earth hasn't even increased more than a degree... according to the computer models the temperature by now, 2015/2016 should have increased significantly, but it hasn't happened.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340

The above article has the graphs to show that dramatic rise in temperature, but the real world isn't backing up the computer models, not even close. Unfortunately the article goes on to tell some fibs, especially about ice fields.



I did have the latest comparison somewhere, but the 2012 comparison between predictions and reality will have to do. The black line is an average of all the computer models and its surrounded by all the computer predictions, some more realistic than others... if the computer models were anything like accurate, there would have been a temperature increase of a degree by now... it hasn't happened.

So what happens over the next 10 years, 20 years or even 50 years if we don't see the temperature increases being claimed? Do we continue to pump billions and billions into an industry? Or do we wait for that half a degree increase and scream that 'WE DID IT, WE WARMED THE PLANET'? Even the tiniest increase in temperature will be assigned to global warming without question or research, not because its true, but because its a multi-billion industry now.

I do like how the argument has changed ever so gradually over the last 30 years. I'm a bit too young to remember the previous debate about global cooling and the onset of a new ice age, but in the early days of the global warming theory, the temperature increase had nothing to do with the sun... since its been pointed out that the temperature of the Earth seems to mirror the activity on the sun, all of a sudden it switched to the sun is reacting with the atmosphere that we (humans) have altered. Around the same time there must have been a memo going round because global warming wasn't mentioned as often and it became climate change. As mentioned before, calling it climate change is stupid. Of course the climate changes, it's been changing for four and a half billion years and will continue to change long after we, as a species, have vacated the planet.

 

[Laurentius]

Blimey, that's quite a statement. The problem is it isn't true.

Temperature hasn't increased for over 18 years, at all. Since the 1970s the overall temperature of the Earth hasn't even increased more than a degree... according to the computer models the temperature by now, 2015/2016 should have increased significantly, but it hasn't happened.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340

The above article has the graphs to show that dramatic rise in temperature, but the real world isn't backing up the computer models, not even close. Unfortunately the article goes on to tell some fibs, especially about ice fields.

I did have the latest comparison somewhere, but the 2012 comparison between predictions and reality will have to do. The black line is an average of all the computer models and its surrounded by all the computer predictions, some more realistic than others... if the computer models were anything like accurate, there would have been a temperature increase of a degree by now... it hasn't happened.

So what happens over the next 10 years, 20 years or even 50 years if we don't see the temperature increases being claimed? Do we continue to pump billions and billions into an industry? Or do we wait for that half a degree increase and scream that 'WE DID IT, WE WARMED THE PLANET'? Even the tiniest increase in temperature will be assigned to global warming without question or research, not because its true, but because its a multi-billion industry now.

I do like how the argument has changed ever so gradually over the last 30 years. I'm a bit too young to remember the previous debate about global cooling and the onset of a new ice age, but in the early days of the global warming theory, the temperature increase had nothing to do with the sun... since its been pointed out that the temperature of the Earth seems to mirror the activity on the sun, all of a sudden it switched to the sun is reacting with the atmosphere that we (humans) have altered. Around the same time there must have been a memo going round because global warming wasn't mentioned as often and it became climate change. As mentioned before, calling it climate change is stupid. Of course the climate changes, it's been changing for four and a half billion years and will continue to change long after we, as a species, have vacated the planet.

You can believe what you like, however you are not only wrong, you are deluding other people through your error, I will get my coat. The costs to the world are far greater from not being cautious than from going hell for leather using up even more of the Earth's non renewable carbon resources so the sensible option is to back off and go for alternatives. Future generations will not thank you for your opinions as the facts will speak for themselves.

 

[Nomad64]

Awww busted Strong is the reading in you it is!

Meanwhile Willcurrie is still scratching his head about the title, let alone the content. Yet people who are quoting actual facts are 'psudo journo' {sic}... oh well.

Details of the survey in post #1? I left the references in it... now I know I've said this before, but I'm not doing your research for you.

I'm not being unreasonable here... you're challenging something that has reference points in it... you were clever enough to work out the AR5 chapter didn't contain what I said it did, so surely you can decipher the Da Vinci code on those graphics I posted up?

It would be plain wrong for me to give you an argument on a stick... and we haven't even got to the main issue yet. You're too busy being pedantic to even discuss the major points... but good on you cupcake! You're adding something to the debate... even if that addition is more amusing than factual. A helpful pointer, the majority (and I mean in the strictest sense, not the IPCC sense) have heard the 97% argument. I know what you're aiming at... but the pay off doesn't argue anything within the overall debate... its a sideline issue based on the analysis of a survey. A survey you're ignoring the pointers on to the data you need in some weird attempt to move the argument to discrediting me for my initial post! Wow... wood, trees.

Over to you petal... meanwhile we'll carry on the debate and wait for you to catch up. You know 'climate change' is causing an increase in Lyme disease don't you?

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2...rming-leading-to-an-increase-in-lyme-disease/

There is a link on the internet, so that is all the proof you need. But note the bit at the opening of the article... climate change effecting polar bears... now given the fact that you have the internet at your fingertips... what was the polar bear population in 1910? Then again in 1960? And 2010? Help us understand the true impact of this devastating global problem... what's the data Mr Potataa?

When the OP starts trolling his own thread, its time to bow out before this ends in tears.

 

[dewi]

You can believe what you like, however you are not only wrong, you are deluding other people through your error, I will get my coat. The costs to the world are far greater from not being cautious than from going hell for leather using up even more of the Earth's non renewable carbon resources so the sensible option is to back off and go for alternatives. Future generations will not thank you for your opinions as the facts will speak for themselves.

Are you claiming I'm wrong about the temperature increases? Or are you claiming I'm wrong about the computer models over-estimating?

It's all very well to claim I'm deluding others with my opinion, but what I'm saying is based in fact... facts that can't be disputed. The temperature hasn't increased at all since 1997/1998.

Future generations will probably be looking back on these discussions and laughing at us for our stupidity, because instead of concentrating on resource management, instead of actually cleaning up the polluted waters and instead of building schools and hospitals in some of the poorest countries in the world, we're spending billions on debating what is arguably a natural phenomenon.

If I'm wrong, prove that I'm wrong. Show me the temperature increase and show me the effect of this temperature increase. It is all very well blaming the weather on global warming, but if global warming isn't occurring... how can anything be blamed on it? The sea level is rising apparently. Okay, if that is true, what is causing it? Global warming when the globe isn't warming?

I completely agree that Earth's finite resources should be replaced with something else, but that has nothing to do with global warming, that is resource management.

 

[mrcharly]

So you are saying that ALL of these graphs (linked below) are a lie?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I think you need to check your tinfoil hat, it's leaking and letting teh rays in.

 

[dewi]

So you are saying that ALL of these graphs (linked below) are a lie?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

I think you need to check your tinfoil hat, it's leaking and letting teh rays in.

Can't help yourself with the insults eh Charly... the old ones are always the best

Nope, not disagreeing with those graphs at all... you are aware that we're not responsible for warming pre-1983? So when you look at the mean temperature on each of those graphs, it levels out around the late 90's towards 2000. You've just posted up something that backs up what I'm saying. Temperature has risen a degree since the 70's and not at all in the past 18 to 19 years. I particularly like the one labeled Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change, that illustrates my point perfectly.

So what's you point? You're agreeing with me but telling me to check my tinfoil hat? Here's a closeup of the last 18 years for you

http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/0...ttle-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/

I suspect what you did was look at that nice big curve without looking closely at the data (or understanding when the climate scientists are saying we started to effect the environment with our gases)... posted it up with what you thought would be a funny line... and now you're going to have to have a rethink.

 

[Willcurrie]

you are aware that we're not responsible for warming pre-1983?

I would have thought that we have been adding large amounts to the atmospheric co2 levels since industrialisation began in the 18th century.

 

[dewi]

I would have thought that we have been adding large amounts to the atmospheric co2 levels since industrialisation began in the 18th century.

I would have thought that was the case as well, but apparently not. Pre 1983, nowt to do with us.

Another weird thing about the NASA graphs... well all the graphs really, is the scale. When you look at the scale on the side its in points of a degree... so a 1 degree temperature rise looks HUGE.

Since 1880 to 2015 the temperature has increased ~288k to 288.8k or 0.3%... that isn't a huge increase... its an increase, but when you consider New York experiences an 80k difference between maximum and minimum temperature in just one year... a 0.8k difference over a 135 years isn't what you would call massive is it?

 

[British Red]

Heres an interesting statistic

Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.

None

For 14 years

 

[dewi]

Yep. The other weird anomaly in the data is the ocean temperatures. Up to a certain point in history ocean temperatures were not included in the data set, neither added or subtracted. All of a sudden the ocean temperature data was added. I did have the details of it at one point... I should dig that out and hover it over the temperature records... see if it made any significant difference when it was added in.

 

[David LaFerney]

I have a question. I am trying to couch this in the most unbiased terms that I can – any perceived bias is strictly unintentional on my part.

In simple terms - one faction (alarmists) claims that global warming is being caused by human activity, and another faction (skeptics) disagrees. Both factions are big and loud and very outspoken in their efforts to make their case. Both factions must have some compelling motivation for being so adamant. Both claim that the other has some nefarious purpose.

In the case of the Skeptics which say that global warming either is not happening or is not being caused by human activity the alleged nefarious motivation is that any real efforts to stop human caused global warming – which is not happening anyway - would lower the profitability of the fossil fuel industry and negatively effect the global economy in general – especially for any countries which act unilaterally. This motivation (be it true or false) is simple and easy to understand.

What exactly is the alleged nefarious motivation for the alarmists? Seriously? I've heard claims of what amounts to job security being the motivation, but it doesn't really seem to be proportional to the zeal of the alarmist faction.

I know that this is not precisely the subject at hand, but I would be interested to hear your opinion (dewi in particular) on this as you seem to be very well informed on your side of the issue.

Thanks.

 

[dewi]

What exactly is the alleged nefarious motivation for the alarmists? Seriously? I've heard claims of what amounts to job security being the motivation, but it doesn't really seem to be proportional to the zeal of the alarmist faction.

Its money.... the global warming theory has become a massive business, and the governments (particularly in the Western world) have realised what a money spinner it truly is. We're not taking millions or even billions, the global warming theory is worth trillions to governments, private institutions, pressure groups, charities and individual scientists.

The 'facts' as the IPCC see them are indisputable, we're told that routinely, but have you noticed that anyone who does dispute the facts (which is relatively easy to do given the last 15 years worth of data) is ridiculed. Charly tried it earlier with his tinfoil hat comment, but unfortunately he didn't look at the data properly. He looked at the first graph with the huge curve and didn't read the small print... and to be fair, who does read the small print. There is much more that hasn't been discussed in this thread (so far) which at the very least brings the global warming theory into doubt, if not disproving it all together, but the IPCC maintains, its indisputable.

Science should be about listening to all sides equally and being willing to re-evaluate data based on new (or existing) evidence. The theory in the 90s and the computer models seemed to be prove the theory that CO2 was driving the temperature upwards, and it appeared to be gaining pace... that is still the position today, CO2 is driving temperature upwards, but the inconvenient truth is that CO2 isn't driving temperature up. From 1898 to 1998 the CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 72ppm and the temperature rose 0.8k... but from 1998 to 2012 the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by over 36ppm... there should have been at the very least a 0.4k rise (I say at least because certain scientists maintain that as the CO2 increases ppm that the temperature will rise at a faster rate)... unfortunately for the IPPC, the temperature increase from 1998 to 2012 was zero. Not even 0.1k, not 0.3k (which sometimes gets reported due to some simple juggling of maths) but zero. Nothing.

So the theory of global warming needs to be revisited. But rather than revisit it, what we've seen is a manipulation of data, a blackout on certain reports or just plain lying when it comes to who agrees with the IPCC and who doesn't.

This mocking of anyone who disagrees isn't helpful either. This isn't some stupid game... this is going to effect real people's lives, because unlike the argument that says if the 'denier' is wrong, the world burns, if the 'believer' is wrong, nothing happens... unfortunately that isn't true. The IPCC are instigating projects with the backing of western governments that will of serious detriment not only the people in the western world, but the developing countries as well.

The case for this being financial isn't immediately obvious as most people tend to think of this as the extra green charge on their electricity bills, or the hike in general fuel prices, but perpetuating the lie doesn't just take from general taxation. The western governments have come up with carbon credits.... a guaranteed money spinner because countries like China and India are developing... their CO2 output will only increase with time. In 2007, the then government here in the UK even suggested a carbon credit card... a way of filtering the carbon credit idea to the masses. The only thing that stopped it coming into play.... the credit crunch, the financial crisis.... whatever you want to call it. People were close to civil unrest as it was.... burdening them with another tax at that point would have been political suicide.

When it comes to the IPCC, its worth mentioning that they don't do any research themselves. They simply collect together published papers and reports, decide which they want to use and which they don't. They receive millions from a variety of sources for this service, yet the scientists submitting the papers do it on a voluntary basis. The scientists don't get paid by the IPCC, they get paid by the institutions who fund the research. The IPCC is paid millions, but the institutions are paid billions. Special interest groups add to the funds, which is no different to the special interest groups that fund the skeptics.

Outside of the IPCC and the research institutions, look at the outside organisations such as Greenpeace or The Nature Conservancy, the WWF or the NWF... combined they earn over $1.6 billion by focusing on the environmental issue of climate change, or more accurately, the issue of global warming.

Whilst I take onboard that the skeptics are funded in part by big business, energy giants and polluters, that doesn't mean there is no argument to be heard.

Both sides of this debate (if you can call it a debate) are earning money from their position, but from the actual claim that CO2 is pushing up global temperatures, the people earning the most are those in favour.

I'd argue that the energy giants, polluters and a large portion of big business shouldn't be let off the hook just because the CO2 argument doesn't stand up... they should be tackled based on what they're doing to the environment as a whole, but there is no reason to hold up the CO2 argument and guard it from critisism or real scientific analysis because some skeptics happen to be from big business etc.... Likewise for those who receive billions for their support of the CO2 argument, they shouldn't be disbelieved or mocked because of the money being poured in.

What should decide it is argument based science. Equal publication of papers both for and against. Equal press coverage on global events (we're hearing a lot about what is happening in the north, but very little about the south... there is a very good reason for that). We need to get rid of this 'believer' and 'denier' rubbish... throw the consensus science out of the window and look at the evidence.

That won't happen though, and it hasn't happened from the beginning. Why?

I do have a question for anyone who fervently believes in the global warming theory though.

 

[andybysea]

I agree with Dewi's first paragraph above,as the reason behind the global warming money spinner. Not hear to argue or debate anything its my belief and im sticking to it.

 

[Laurentius]

I think it is the big money that is playing you for a sucker in all this, denial favours the fat cats not us mere mortals and then only in the short term. I have to say it all makes me very angry and I have been very restrained in this debate so far. But then there is a proverb that there are none so blind as those who will not see. You are not gaining anything from this at all, not kudos, not credibility, nothing, nada!

 

[dewi]

I think it is the big money that is playing you for a sucker in all this, denial favours the fat cats not us mere mortals and then only in the short term. I have to say it all makes me very angry and I have been very restrained in this debate so far. But then there is a proverb that there are none so blind as those who will not see. You are not gaining anything from this at all, not kudos, not credibility, nothing, nada!

Why are you so angry?

If the science is indisputable, it should be very easy to dispute what I'm saying, but despite attempts, nobody has managed it yet. The indisputable is in fact very disputable.

Big money? The biggest business in the world right now is man-made global warming... if you're in denial of that, okay, but it is worth trillions as long as it is indisputable.

And sorry, but I've proven time and time again, I can not be bought. I've been offered thousands to go against my principles but it hasn't happened. What is my gain from looking at the data? So far I've been mocked and insulted... you've just said, no kudos, no credibility, nothing, nada. So why would I do it unless it was based on principle?

Also, I'd lose the proverb from your convincing argument... you're making the global warming theory look like a religion.

 

[Laurentius]

It is easy to dispute crap unfortunatly it is not easy to convince those who have not advanced beyond believing in crap to accept that kind of reasoning.

 

[dewi]

It is easy to dispute crap unfortunatly it is not easy to convince those who have not advanced beyond believing in crap to accept that kind of reasoning.

I'm sorry you feel like that, but I've used the data from NASA and the IPPC. Its the very same data that makes the facts indisputable. So unfortunately if you've advanced beyond the data, you're believing in absolutely nothing.

Science is science. Either the data stands on its own merit, or it doesn't. In this case, the data does not support the hypothesis and if the data doesn't support the starting point, how can it be indisputable?

I appreciate why you're annoyed. If you could argue the point as the point is usually argued, that I'm a crackpot, a daydreamer or that I'm against the environment, it'd be easy. But my argument is in support of the environment, it is in support of the developing world and it is an argument that uses the very science we're being told proves the global warming argument to disprove it. If I were in your position with your belief, I'd be livid!

The fact that I have absolutely no gain from my argument is something else thats going to irk you. But on the bright side, my opinion, my argument won't make the blindest bit of difference in the scale of things... the IPCC isn't going to reverse its campaign based on my say so, and the carbon credit system won't be halted. When it comes into play though, please don't join in the argument that its making the poor poorer, the hungry hungrier or setting the developing world back. Remember, you believe the Earth is warming up despite the data showing otherwise.

 

[David LaFerney]

Big money? The biggest business in the world right now is man-made global warming... if you're in denial of that, okay, but it is worth trillions as long as it is indisputable.

This year when petroleum and gas prices are in the dumper Exxon and Chevron are both in Fortune 500s 10 most profitable business list - that's just 2 companies - if you counted the entire fossil fuel sector as one entity it is probably the most profitable business venture in all of history. In 2008 (I think) big oil made 51.5 billion in profits in their single best quarter.

But I'm having trouble finding the financials for Big Climate. Can you please point to them?

It is very difficult for people - even intelligent, well informed, well intended, decent people - to get past their own confirmation biases. We tend to believe that those who disagree with us just don't have the same ability or resources to understand that we do - if only they knew what I know they would see how right I am. But that often isn't quite the case. Once we become invested in a position we will sometimes fight to the death in defence of it (right or wrong) even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Sometimes it's a feature, and sometimes it's a flaw - but it is certainly baked in. Even when we know about this fact it's almost impossible to overcome it. The best we can do is realize that no matter how right we believe we are, we could still be wrong. I'm sure I could be.