Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

Post Reply New Topic

There's no contradiction at all. If not for the greenhouse effect, it would be quite a bit cooler. There are estimates, not measurements, of what the average temperature would be without the greenhouse gases.

That said, the precise effects are not well understood in a real world environment. This is not a test tube. We do not know, for example, the precise effect in the real world when we increase CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm and the other greenhouse gases stay the same. In fact, recent reports show how little we understand them -- if they acted as the global warmers predict, the temperatures would have risen more than they have risen. So, no, the effects are not well understood.

It's not unusual to be able to see something and know it is there without understanding it.



To a certain degree, evolution is speculation. We know that it happens but our "explanations" about specific details are often guesses. The more we study evolution, the more likely our guesses are to be accurate.

For example, it is thought that at least eight percent of human genome is viral in nature. There may be more viral DNA in the human genome that has yet to be detected. As to when it go there, it is not necessarily easy to say. About all we can do is look at related lines of ours, i.e. apes, and see if it is present there as well. If it is, we can arrive at a reasonable, but not absolute, conclusion that it was introduced before the two lines diverged.

That evolution happens is not in serious question, but the details are not always settled. The scientific debate about the details are sometimes wrongly interpreted by those opposed to evolution as being a debate about its existence. In the case of the Global Warmers, it certainly appears that they often try to make their statements more absolute so as to give the anti Global Warming side less of an argument against it.

In other words, that the climate is warmer as a result of greenhouse gases is certainly not in dispute. But that does not mean that everything about Global Warming is well understood.

Furthermore, it is very, very clear that the Global Warming Panic side is not only making guesses, but that some of those guesses are very wild and have no rational basis at all. Some of their wildest are easily refutable as were the claims that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035. What other wild claims have they made that have yet to be refuted?

Keep in mind that I'm not anti-Global Warming, but neither am I in a panic about it. It seems very clear to me that we have no idea what portion of what warming we have seen is due to man's activities. It might be 90% of it. It might be 10% of it. We just don't know. Yet, they want to ignore that we don't know and impose drastic restrictions on mankind.

No.



It won't be too late to make changes.

It's not like we would see a runaway situation that would result in ever increasing temperatures -- that is pretty much impossible. Rather, we would see a new equilibrium (if you can call it that since the climate will remain volatile to some degree) that is somewhat higher.

By the way, if you want to make changes, you need to make them in China. Fat chance with that.



Keep in mind that over time there will likely be considerably less CO2 output than today as oil and gas become more and more difficult to find and to extract. If some projections by coal experts are correct, we are fairly near the point of "peak coal" and some say we have already passed that point. Furthermore, with modern technology, we can scrub more and more of the pollutants from coal but at a cost.

Forget about renewable energy like solar power and wind power. They can certainly help reduce the reliance on oil and gas and coal, but they cannot possibly replace it, at least not without crippling the world's economies. And it isn't clear that renewable energy will result in much lower CO2 emissions for the amount of power generated, either, when you take into account all the CO2 released in mining, manufacturing, transporting, and maintaining the equipment.

How do you feel about nuclear energy? I suspect that we will be forced to switch to nuclear energy over time, but it is clear that a sizable portion of the "Global Warming is bad" crowd doesn't want that, either.



Like that the glaciers in the Himalayas would all melt by 2035? That may not have made it into a peer reviewed journal, but they sure spread that claim around a lot and panicked a lot of people with it.

As I understand it, many of their models used to create the climate hysteria make rather simplistic assumptions that are simply not true. Some of their models assume that not only will CO2 emissions increase very far into the future, but they also assume that the rate of CO2 emissions can and will increase indefinitely. That is so absurd that I can only refuse to believe that anyone who pushes such a model is hardly rational.

The eco phreaks want us to take an oath of poverty and freeze our asses of in the winter.

ruveyn

I couldn't remember the estimates of what the Earth's average temperature would be if there were no greenhouse gases. My best recollection is that it would average to somewhere between 0 F and 32 F. Taking into account the decline in temperature with increasing latitudes, it seems reasonable to expect that human life could survive in the equatorial regions and would be pretty much impossible in the polar regions. That said, it seems likely that the species of life on Earth would be much different than now.

So I did some looking. According to this, http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html:

I am surprised that the author seems to assume the same temperatures at the equator as at the poles.

With the greenhouse effect, the average temperature is estimated to be something like 60 F.

So from a very naive viewpoint, raising atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm should cause a difference if maybe 20 F. Obviously, that hasn't happened.

For one thing, there are a number of greenhouse gases, not just CO2. The most important greenhouse gas is not CO2 -- it is water vapor. Increasing CO2 levels just increases one small component of the greenhouse effect.

Also, the greenhouse effect from atmospheric CO2 is not linear. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the greater levels of CO2 have diminishing effects on the temperature. That is, if you double the current amount of atmospheric CO2, the contribution to the greenhouse effect of CO2 would be somewhat less than the contribution from the current atmospheric CO2.

In all likelihood, we could easily double the amount of atmospheric CO2 and live quite comfortably. More importantly, it is unlikely to be possible for any amount of increase of CO2 to result in a runaway Global Warming.

That said, toward the end of the Earth, we will see a serious Global Warming that will eventually render life on Earth to be impossible. But that won't be from greenhouse gases -- it will be from massively greater solar radiation as the sun's diameter increases to something like the diameter of the orbit of Venus.

One post- "we know very little about how the climate works!"
Next post- "there are no positive feedbacks in the climate system!"

Temperature increases could lead to more forest fires, for example. Combined with our current levels of deforestation, this will release a lot of CO2.
Higher temperatures will lead to extra water vapour evaporation. Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas.
If, as skeptics are so quick to claim, rising temperatures cause rising levels of CO2, then that is an obvious positive feedback.
Some studies on this: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006GeoRL..3310703T
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract

Declining sea ice exposes more ocean. Oceans are not as good at reflecting heat as ice:
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/ ... -01362.pdf

Methane is released from thawing permafrost. It is estimated that there is more elemental carbon in the methane stored here than in the whole of the atmosphere. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05040.html

We are already seeing a decrease in phytoplankton photosynthesis due to disruptions to ocean systems: http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_rec ... ge=1&doc=1

We could release methane hydrate from under the ocean: http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 47976.html (I don't have time to look up the scientific papers involved)

Various studies have estimated climate sensitivity (the temperature increase associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2- with no positive feedback, this would be around 1 degree) at 1.5-4 degrees, with around 3 degrees being most likely. So positive feedback is more potent than raw emissions.

You have a very active imagination. I never made any claim that we know very little about how the climate works or that there are no positive feedbacks. Perhaps some effort at reading comprehension is in order.

What I said, or at least meant to say, is that we don't know enough about how the climate works to make the claims being made by the alarmists.

What is your definition of an alarmist?

By the same token, should you not acknowledge that we do not know enough about how the climate works to make the unusually optimistic claims that you make?

There is plenty of reason to think that a warmer planet is a more productive planet overall. Look at history to understand it instead of to rewrite history to make it fit preconceived notions.

I used to be concerned about Global Warming. But the more I read about it, the less things fit together. What I saw was not science, but politics claiming to be science to scare people in order to push an agenda.

It reminded me of Carl Sagan's alarmist claims at the end of the First Gulf War that the oil fires set by the Iraqis would cause a world wide nuclear winter-like disaster.

As far as I'm concerned, both Global Warming and Carl Sagan's nuclear winter from oil fires are pretty much the same thing -- environmentalists making so-called "scientific" claims of disaster in order to push their agenda. And that is alarmism.

I think that some people go too far with their rejection of "appeal to authority".

The truth is, we all have to appeal to authority for 90% of the decisions we make in our lives. We don't have time to gain a deep understanding of every subject that affects us.

I don't know anything about climate science. But I do know that the international body of people who do know about climate science broadly agree that the mean global temperature is rising, that it's mostly due to human activity, and that it's potentially very dangerous. So I believe it too.

Some (fringe) political groups have jumped on the science, but mostly it has been politicised by the deniers- the right wings of the Republican and Conservative parties that are generally ignorant of science and opposed to restrictions on industry. Those groups have much bigger impacts than the Green Party of either the US or the UK.

It is the climate change denial that is politics rather than science.

So anyone who thinks that Global Warming Is A Thing is an alarmist?

If that is not your opinion, I wish to congratulate you on not answering either of my questions.

As an engineer of environmental development, I think at least I might have some ressources to see difference between politically motivated announcement and scientific ones.

What is statistical truth by measurement and physical laws, is that average temperature of earth is rising, and that more CO2 in the air leads to the earth heating up. That goes as well to scientific knowledge about heat energy from sun being affected by CO2 just as ice, rock and ... tons of other probes have proven, that whenever the air had an averagely higher concentration of CO2, as well the temperature was in average rising. (Dont mismatch that with supercatastrophes, blowing tons of smoke and CO2 AND smoke AND dirt into the air, which leaded to short supercold areas.)

When someone tells you about "the truth what a certain area will be like in 25 years" then thats nonsense. Our climate is affected by so much different influences, that good specialists can give pretty good estimations, but telling 100% what will be is prophesying.

What IS a fact, that an raising of average earth temperature will have an effect, so its physical law, that if you put energy into an existing system, then the system will be affected.

The general problems of changes (anyway if to getting more colder or getting more hotter in an certain area,) is that our agrar culture is highly specialized. An wheat farmer, may have an tractor he can use for different kind of works, but tons of other gears and machines he owns, will be specialized on wheat or even an certain kind of wheat. Same goes for potatoe farmers, asparagus farmers, .... Change of climate simply sucks for these, because unlike 2 centuries ago, where you rarely had specified tools, you cant tell yourself that easily anymore "Oh this year I will try something else." To change your farming specialization, is horribly expensive, as well as you cant relie on your own experiences anymore, so because of lack of experience it is as well more likely to have some bad years in the beginning. This causes problems to food industry, and because of us all eating, this is affecting us all.

It can affect as well us everyday people, when it comes to desicions about where to build your house. Cities and villages normally have records, about calamities and "catastrophes" as floods, sliding hillsides, avalanches... so there are normally experiences, where building a house will be averagely safe, while other places might be used for agrar culture or similar, but not for stuff, that is hardly removable or replacable. That affected as well stuff like typical european insurances against housedamages. Weather changes lead as well to these statistics and knowledge no longer being as useful as before. Which is simply sh***y for any kind of landowners.

As well that any change of climate, is as well a "fit"-test for animals living in an area. If an area gets wetter, then the animals living in that area have to do an fit test. Getting wetter may not sound that horrible, as getting hotter, but wet weather favors as example existence of funghals, which are as example a risc for bee colonies, frogs, ...

Because of earth changing since its existence, there regularly have been such fit tests... the problem is, that we know force many different fit tests on animals and plants at once. One fit test normally is not that hard... so when it comes to weather getting wetter, and fungals being favored, then there might be tons of frogs dying because of that, but because of natural variety, there normally will be some exemplar of an species, having immunity against that or the ability to move in another neighborhood. So there will be a sudden drop of numbers of an certain animals, but after some generation, it can be normalized again. The problem is that our industrialization forces right now tons of "fit"-tests on certain species. So its not about finding the few exemplars being fit to the weather getting wetter: But to being wetter, being able to handle agrar chemikals being used in his neighborhood, being able to handle destruction of natural habitats, being able to compete with the accidentally imported animal from another continent, ...

The more drop out conditions, a species must fulfill and solve at once, the more complicated it gets. So people telling you that earth will become a lifeless desert is nonsense. Because just as specialization has become a specialty for many kind of animals, there are as well universal-animals, that specialized on being "not physically specialized". Like crows, cockroaches, rats, wolfs, .... Animals that are able to live all around the globus, will hardly be wiped out, because of an area of the globus, becoming more like another area of an globus. But for specialized animals the amount of fit tests are bad, because maybe 5% of an certain insect will have resistance against a funghal caused by more wet weather, and from these surviving 5%, that could theoretically re-culture an area, again only 5% might be resistant against a certain pesticide, until the number gets so few, that they can be wiped out easily. Animals are able to adjust to changes, but therefore need time to repopulate again with the more resistant species. If they must face another fit test, before they had time to repopulate again, by statistic the number of animals with a different gen variety decreases, and so their ability to withstand changes and repopulate.

Someone telling you what exactly is going to happen in 25 years is a prophet. But to say, that climate changes, cause in general problems for specialized agrar industry, are an additional stress factor for flora and fauna, and will lead us to facing situations we have not experienced and so cause problem, is absolutely ok. Problems must not mean "horrible catastrophe" but as example we faced in the last centuries heat waves in summer, that our farmers were not used to. Its not the ultimate catastrophe, leading to my country getting a desert, because we have lots of water ressources, that simply were not needed before for fields, because of it before raining every few days. But getting water supply for ALL our fields, that before did not use them, simply causes costs to our farmers, that they cant afford alone, and need as well infrastructure done therefore. So a part of that must be carried by taxes, and as well draining a complete countries fields isnt done overnight, so until this is done, there will be crop failures regularly, leading to rising prices for food. Because of that rising food costs, are in my country, actually the most important index factor for inflation during the last years. Or malaria that is now coming into my country from italy. Its not horrific, and it can be dealt with, but still its harder for my people, because of them not having acchieved an natural resistance against malaria over centuries, so people being affected by malaria, often endure worse symptoms then typical. Just as I did not know, what german people, had for problems with the ticks, that are typical for my area. Ok, they are a bit annoying and force you to get an vaccination because of them carrying a nerve-disease, but thats normally not that horrible. The problem simply is, because of them not being used to ticks, many that are bitten get infections that are in my country, very rare and are described as "allergy", but not as standard. When I get regularly bitten by a tick, I have a scratchy little red spot, not an one inch high crate that is festering. ^^

Nothing of that is "the total end of the world", but everything of that causes simply needless problems, that must be dealt with. If that problem were caused by necessary stuff, noone would be talking about it, but most of that problems are caused by needless capitalism and consume, and there is definitely nothing bad about questioning that.

If we just warmed up to using nuclear power then we can have our cake and eat it. We would be able to use an even better source of energy without emitting any of those greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and plus we would be healthier with cleaner air to breathe on top of it. There would be no need to take a vow of poverty. Unfortunately, many eco-activists do not like the nuclear option either, despite the fact that it would be necessary to achieve what they want.

I really, really hate roaches but damn, they are awesome. They don't have a good evolutinary resistance to shoes, however.

Schnee, I really enjoyed your well-thought out and detailed explanations. I do have a problem with greed if the accumulation of wealth has been made with dishonest means, but I don't have a problem with the global system in general based on hard work and merit. It is through technology and science that we have made the advancements in vaccinations (please do not turn this into a diatribe of vaccines causing autism, people!), advances in medicine and dentistry, computers, communications, etc., that have wrought incredible benefits to humankind and many, many other species. I would venture to say that the benefits are pretty profound in the grand scheme of things. These advances that could not have been made without a viable energy source.

The more people on this planet, the more energy it takes to sustain them, but planetary resources are simultaneously recycled and redistributed by us too. This is not different from what other species do, they just don't communicate their intentions to us. As a species, we are driven to survive, and all our efforts are put into that survivalism. And I don't have a problem with that as long as we know the risks. But I just don't think that using climate as a boogeyman to scare everyone is a very well thought out tactic. No matter what we do, we are going to consume energy but we are also going to redistribute energy, no matter in what form it is. And we will continue to believe that we can control life on this planet until the planet itself gets hungry enough and decides to swallow us up. (yes, I'm joking, sort of)

I simply think that CO2 emissions causing climactic rise in temperature/global warming is an error as it oversimplifies a dynamic, incredible process we can only begin to fathom because we have such a dearth of pertinent information.

I am not talking about vaccinations, but more about really needless stuff like the new-newer smartphone every year, wasting tons of precious materials and metals, that could be used scientifically so much better. Just when it comes to that actual yuppieh food trend of decorating food with small gold particles and eating that. Thats a rare metal, that our actual technology highly depends on, and as an engineer that just makes me puke. They even mention it exactly "No it tastes nothing, and doesnt affect digestion." Yeah then goddamn, let that rare metal to your industry and not to the cockroaches in the sewers. Head - Bang - Bang - Bang - ...

Or stuff like enormous amounts of cotton fields, that need water and soil ressources, that are used for bad-quality cloth articles, that get transported with enormous CO2 output around the world, because of some fashion gurus convincing a majority of our society, that cloths must be changed every three months, and so have to be "thrown away" articles. As engineer, the last thing I do was to denie the positive amount of our nowadays technologies. But only by avoiding so much really, really, really, REALLY needless stuff, we could avoid so much needless pollution, without any misadvantages to our healthcare or comfort or survival. I mean REALLY needless sh**. ^^

I agree, HOWEVER...
On the other hand, in the big scheme of things, these crappy (materialistic) values are what keep much of our society from killing each other out of sheer boredom.
Many years ago it used to be religion.
Before that, people just died from being unable to survive the seasons, not having medicines, or enough food.
I am not going to buy into the idea that burning fossil fuels will send us back hundreds or thousands of years. If anything, the earth's dynamic systems could care less about us and if it is going purge us, it will do it regardless of how many fuels we burn or not.

I know that most businesses, regardless of whether farming or NASA, they all utilize computers which have made their lives and businesses a helluva lot easier in so many ways. And, those computer businesses making technological advances depend on consumers keeping them in business long enough to actually make even better advances in microprocessing. Apple opening its OS to anyone who can develop a software program has kept many people not only entertained, but part of the evolving advancements in computing. Who would have thought touch screens would exist a mere 20 years ago? I remember when the internet first came out and it was a 8kb connection which turned to a celebration when it became 14kb, then 28kb, and so on. I ran up hundreds of dollars in internet connections PER MONTH going into AOL chatroms which I don't have to spend now, thanks to advances in technology. Things change! And when they don't, that's when the real problems begin!

If you want people to simply be raised to have better values, that is a whole other topic altogether!