The basics of global warming

[iiandyiiii]

This is how I understand it, in simple terms, and broadly speaking:

1. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas – the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy from the sun that is trapped as heat.
2. By analyzing the air trapped inside arctic/antarctic ice cores, we know that CO2 has been rising at a far greater rate since the industrial revolution than before.
3. Certain human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, release CO2 that before was in mineral form (and other activities, like livestock husbandry, increase methane levels, another greenhouse gas).
4. Estimates of the amount of CO2 released from burning fossil fuels are rather close to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
5. Global temperatures have risen, in fits and starts, with a rough correlation to the rise in CO2 levels.

Are all of these statements mostly true? Have I left out any significant points in the ‘basics of global warming’? Which points, if any, are controversial? Which points are most often disputed by those who deny global warming (or human-caused global warming)?

[Fishtar]

All your statements are all true. Either based on the laws of physics, or on mountains of collected data. The only thing important that you left out is that we are constantly observing the sun, and that it is not the cause of the warming. (“It’s the sun stupid” is the most common retort I hear.

Here is the most succinct argument I can come up with:
Fact - The mean global temperature has been steadily rising for decades.

Fact - Neither the orbit of the Earth nor the activity of the sun can explain these changes.

Fact - CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Fact - Ten billion tons of CO2 were released in 2012 through the burning of fossil fuels.
(To help visualize this, 10 billion ton of CO2 would fill up 7,300,000,000,000,000 standard party balloons. And that is just for 2012)

Therefore, humans are warming the earth.

The only possible counter arguments to this are:

1. All the scientists and government agencies are manipulating the temperature data. And for some reason the Earth’s temperature is not being affected by the CO2. A very weak argument.

2. The universe unfolds as God sees fit. If the temperature is rising, then it is his will. The mechanisms involved are irrelevant. This is actually a good argument (Limbaugh was first person I heard use it). And it makes the faithful feel that they are questioning God if they support any action to stop the warming.
   The only real question is what to do about it. If anything.m.

[GIGObuster]

@iiandyiiii

Are all of these statements mostly true? Have I left out any significant points in the ‘basics of global warming’? Which points, if any, are controversial? Which points are most often disputed by those who deny global warming (or human-caused global warming)?

The statements are true, the points should not really be disputed and nowadays when there are discussions I have encountered many that claim that sceptics claim that indeed those items are not controversial, but never mind that.

In practice even when they claim that there is no controversy in those points the reality is that the groups and sources they rely on never officially remove old talking points that are “no longer operative” as a Nixon aide would say, the result then is a miasma of contradictions. One case in point is that after sceptical founded groups like Berkeley Earth in 2011 confirmed that the temperature records were very accurate and that humans are very much likely the reason for the recent increase; then groups like the ones from Anthony Watts at WUWT decided to ignore it and continue harping what has no basis or good support now: that surface stations in the USA were mostly inaccurate and that the 'heath island" effect explained the warming observed.

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6544

Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.” And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as “a man driven by a very serious agenda.”

Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming. But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and thinking not just about the science here, but about the morality.

For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.

But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

[septimus]

I am NOT a denialist, but OP’s synopsis is missing a few key points on which denialists like to seize.

One point is that increases in atmospheric H[sub]2[/sub]O is causing as much of the warming as atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]. To scientists this doesn’t affect the argument: CO[sub]2[/sub] causes warming, the warming leads to higher H[sub]2[/sub]O in the atmosphere which causes more warming. It’s an example of positive feedback in which CO[sub]2[/sub] is the root cause, but the H[sub]2[/sub]O is still relevant. Denialists like to suggest that the positive feedback mechanism is not fully understood, and that we might (mysteriously) enter a new regime where that feedback reverses! (Right now in BBQ Pit a denialist is having fun writing “nanner-nanner-natter” against laymen who fail to mention H[sub]2[/sub]O feedback.)

Another confusing point is that, as shown here. the anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] is a seemingly small part of the carbon cycle. Plants take up 20 times as much CO[sub]2[/sub] as is created by man’s burning fuels. The oceans already have ten times as much carbon as all carbon fuel sources. (Perhaps someone more lucid than I can explain why “small” changes can have big effects, especially in the near term.)

@GIGObuster

In practice even when they claim that there is no controversy in those points the reality is that the groups and sources they rely on never officially remove old talking points …

It’s frustrating to argue with denialists. They slip readily from one denialist position to position, even when the positions contradict each other. After convincing them that it’s happening, it takes hours to then explain why it’s bad, by which time they’ll have forgotten that it’s really happening.

[GIGObuster]

@septimus

It’s frustrating to argue with denialists. They slip readily from one denialist position to position, even when the positions contradict each other. After convincing them that it’s happening, it takes hours to then explain why it’s bad, by which time they’ll have forgotten that it’s really happening.

Or they do not mind getting toss under the bus by other denialists, as I amusingly noticed on the pit discussion, one of them pointed at the science (just in an attempt to humiliate a poster that was opposed to him) that Water Vapor is indeed an important feedback, but never mind that the other contrarian in the discussion actually does not think that water vapor is important.

As for the point that anthropogenic CO2 is a seemingly small part of the carbon cycle:

Dishonor among deniers

Every year, hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 enter the atmosphere from natural sources like the oceans, land plants, and soil. And — the relevant point — hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 exit the atmosphere, bound for those same natural sources. Until we started burning fossil fuels, the inflow to and outflow from the atmosphere was in balance. That’s why, for 10,000 years, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was reasonably stable at about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume).

Since the industrial revolution, we’ve been adding CO2 to the atmosphere which has not been balanced by outflows. We’re presently emitting about 30 billion tonnes of CO2 to the air every year. About half of that actually has been leaving the atmosphere for other reservoirs of the carbon cycle, but the other half has remained in the air. Our excess emissions have accumulated over time, raising the atmosphere’s CO2 level.

To make an analogy, suppose you operated a business with cash reserves of $300,000, an annual net income of a million dollars, and annual expenditures of a million dollars. Input balances output, so the net worth of the company, and your cash reserves, remain stable (while providing employment and services to your community). Then you turn the business over to your idiot son-in-law, who continues to take in a million a year while spending the same million as before, plus an additional $30,000 every year on his annual pleasure trip to Las Vegas.

His Vegas vacation is only a small part of the annual budget — a mere 3%. But it’s all of the deficit. Your company is now losing $30,000 every year, and after ten years your entire cash reserve is gone, you must declare bankruptcy, and your employees are looking for new jobs. When you confront your son-in-law, he whines about his vacation being such a small fraction of the annual budget that its’ negligible.

Although our CO2 emissions are only a small part (about 3%) of the total flow into the atmosphere, they account for all of the excess. And that excess has accumulated, so that since the start of the industrial revolution the CO2 concentration in the air has risen from about 280, to about 390, ppmv.

That’s a 40% increase. And it’s all because of us.

Why, then, do those in denial of reality make such statements? I can only imagine two possible reasons.

First, it’s possible that they actually haven’t figured out how irrelevant and misleading their statements are. If that’s the case — if they have the audacity to deny global warming without even bothering to figure out something as straightforward as the carbon cycle and the human impact on atmospheric CO2, then it’s to their dishonor. How dare they try to influence public opinion and policy, without even bothering to learn the basics?

Second, it’s possible that they do know how irrelevant and misleading are their statements. That’s even worse.

[Quartz]

@iiandyiiii

5. Global temperatures have risen, in fits and starts, with a rough correlation to the rise in CO2 levels.

This last one is the difficult one, IMO. It would be better to say, ‘Global temperatures have risen.’ and follow it with another: ‘Scientists are drawing a link between the rise in CO2 and the rise in global temperature.’

It’s important to note that correlation is not causation: the Earth has seen these temperatures before, but you have to go a long way back in human terms, but not geologically. Equally, there are thought to have been ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 levels (during the Devonian, for instance).

The Earth’s climate is a hugely complex and chaotic system that is not yet understood, incorporating many various things such as the amount of volcanism, the activity of the sun (sunspots etc), the distance from and angle to the sun (Milankovitch cycles), continental drift, and much more. Some of these operate over millions of years (e.g. Antarctica’s transit over the South Pole), others tens or hundreds of thousands (Milankovitch cycles), others over human time-spans (sunspots).

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere may have increased by 50%, a huge relative increase, but it’s only increased from ~250 ppm to ~400 ppm , a very small absolute increase.

The role of human-released CO2 in the warming of the Earth is far from certain. Possible? Absolutely. Probable? Probably. Certainly? No.

The human factors in the argument have not helped: it’s become semi-religious, with those who dare to question the orthodox warmist line being ostracised and denounced like heretics.

Again, correlation is not causation. It’s certainly worth research. And it’s certainly better to reduce our emissions of all pollutants, including CO2.

(As you can guess, I’m firmly on the fence.)

[Ken001]

Ok. Allow me to express the core issues as I see them.

1. Human industrial activities since 1820 have released the stored-up carbon of 200 million years. Give or take. Rationally it appears this has affected our atmosphere and is causing the planet to warm.

Denialists/skeptics say that human effects are trivial. That seems unlikely but we really don’t know.

2. The Earth’s climate is warming regardless of human activity.

3. Regardless of warming, humans are polluting the planet. The oceans are slowly acidifying as they absorb CO2. We are poisoning the air, soil, and water and that is unarguable.

4. Pollution/poisoning process is killing the Earth’s biosphere - the microbes at the core of the food chain. Once an acre of dirt refuses to grow edible plants, we face a very bleak future.

5. Whatever the future holds, human beings will survive. The painful interim however will see billions die from famine and disease.

[GIGObuster]

@Quartz

This last one is the difficult one, IMO. It would be better to say, ‘Global temperatures have risen.’ and follow it with another: ‘Scientists are drawing a link between the rise in CO2 and the rise in global temperature.’

It’s important to note that correlation is not causation: the Earth has seen these temperatures before, but you have to go a long way back in human terms, but not geologically. Equally, there are thought to have been ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 levels (during the Devonian, for instance).

The Earth’s climate is a hugely complex and chaotic system that is not yet understood, incorporating many various things such as the amount of volcanism, the activity of the sun (sunspots etc), the distance from and angle to the sun (Milankovitch cycles), continental drift, and much more. Some of these operate over millions of years (e.g. Antarctica’s transit over the South Pole), others tens or hundreds of thousands (Milankovitch cycles), others over human time-spans (sunspots).

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere may have increased by 50%, a huge relative increase, but it’s only increased from ~250 ppm to ~400 ppm , a very small absolute increase.

The role of human-released CO2 in the warming of the Earth is far from certain. Possible? Absolutely. Probable? Probably. Certainly? No.

The human factors in the argument have not helped: it’s become semi-religious, with those who dare to question the orthodox warmist line being ostracised and denounced like heretics.

So much opinion, very little science.

Very little increases in PPM can kill you when arsenic and many other compounds and elements increase just a little.

This is also very probable and so far the evidence is overwhelming that is happening and we are responsible, the data shows that we are more likely to see things like a huge rise in the oceans than we are to see someone dying of cancer from using tobacco.

Using terms like warmist also shows that being on the fence depends on consulting sources that are not looking at the science or misinterpreting it. The chaotic and complex points are also becoming boiler plate contrarian points with scientists still reporting that that and some unknowns are not reasons enough to not do anything about the issue.

"We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH

It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works.

@Quartz

Again, correlation is not causation.

And again, an opinion, and an old contrarian point, it would be valid if scientists were not already looking for that and like if they had not looking for more evidence than just what it appears in graphs and surveys.

Confusing correlation with causation: rooster syndrome

Climate scientists do not immediately jump to the conclusion, on seeing this graph, that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change. This conclusion has been reached only after much evidence has been gathered, and a mechanism identified. As James Lawrence Powell explains:

If we knew nothing but the chart, we would know only that fossil fuel emissions, atmospheric CO2, and temperature correlate. That would seem unlikely to represent coincidence, but we would not know which of the three factors might have caused the others. And, as always, we would need to remember that correlation is not causation. But in this case we do know more: we know that burning fossil fuels has put increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We know from carbon isotope studies that the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere came from fossil fuel combustion rather than from some natural cause. We know that the greenhouse effect, a fact of physics, requires that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature.

To take the opposite view and deny that the chart shows cause and effect requires one to believe two things for which there is no evidence: first, during the twentieth century, some unknown factor suppressed the greenhouse effect, preventing the increase in carbon dioxide from causing the increase in temperature. … Second, if we grant for the sake of argument that something did suppress the greenhouse effect, then some natural process must have caused the temperature increase. But … scientists have investigated each natural cause of temperature variation – the Sun’s activity, atmospheric ozone, volcanic eruptions, sulfur aerosols – and none by itself or in any combination can explain the twentieth century temperature increase.

Global warming deniers often point out that, historically, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased after global temperature rises, not before. They then argue that this proves carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming. In fact, the situation is a classic example of a self-reinforcing system. CO2 causes temperature rises which in turn cause release of CO2 to the atmosphere, and so on…. Past episodes of global warming have indeed mostly been triggered by increases in solar energy. The present episode of global warming has been sparked by increased atmospheric CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. The warming is in turn releasing more CO2, which is reinforcing the warming.

@Quartz

It’s certainly worth research. And it’s certainly better to reduce our emissions of all pollutants, including CO2.

(As you can guess, I’m firmly on the fence.)

People like Muller that were sceptical until “he did it themselves” to see if the temperature record showed warming and human made CO2 was the most likely reason are no longer on the fence, James Lawrence Powell also explains:

James Lawrence Powell: The Curious Case of Richard Muller, Former Climate Change Critic

[GIGObuster]

@Ken001

5. Whatever the future holds, human beings will survive. The painful interim however will see billions die from famine and disease.

A nit here, if we do a concerted effort a lot of the bad effects will be manageable, unfortuntely I also know history and social studies are in my background, I’m afraid we will see even more full on denial coming from the Republican party and other conservative groups that will cause even more delays on dealing with the adaptation costs, because on top of denying the basic science they also deny the most likely effects that will result from that denial.

The current general unpreparedness in areas that will see massive human migrations thanks to ocean rise alone (many are not taking into account the fact that the ocean rise and warming of the land will make hurricanes and other things like droughts more devastating so we could see these massive migrations sooner rather than by the last half of the century), food shortages and other issues makes me pessimistic on humans avoiding massive losses of life during the bottleneck years. We are still now having a discussion that will make the difference between what could be a major inconvenience vs the loss of cities and whole nations and all what that can cause if we are not prepared.

[GIGObuster]

@GIGObuster

People like Muller that were sceptical until “he did it themselves” to see if the temperature record showed warming and human made CO2 was the most likely reason are no longer on the fence, James Lawrence Powell also explains:

James Lawrence Powell: The Curious Case of Richard Muller, Former Climate Change Critic - YouTube

For some reason a jump to 44 seconds was added, here is a link to the beginning of the short video:

James Lawrence Powell: The Curious Case of Richard Muller, Former Climate Change Critic

[Lumpy]

@iiandyiiii

1. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas – the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy from the sun that is trapped as heat.
2. By analyzing the air trapped inside arctic/antarctic ice cores, we know that CO2 has been rising at a far greater rate since the industrial revolution than before.

And pretty much these two lead to a corollary: all other things being equal, you would then expect the average global temperature to rise; the only question is are all other things equal? Even if you proposed plausible counter-balancing mechanisms (increased cloud cover, etc.), you’d still be postulating climate change.

[here_and_there]

@iiandyiiii

1. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas – the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy from the sun that is trapped as heat.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (for the Earth’s atmosphere). It plays a small part in the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

2. By analyzing the air trapped inside arctic/antarctic ice cores, we know that CO2 has been rising at a far greater rate since the industrial revolution than before.

3. Certain human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, release CO2 that before was in mineral form (and other activities, like livestock husbandry, increase methane levels, another greenhouse gas).

4. Estimates of the amount of CO2 released from burning fossil fuels are rather close to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

I am not saying that it is so.
But, if it so…So, what?
Humans also produce a lot of… bricks… and potatoes.

5. Global temperatures have risen, in fits and starts, with a rough correlation to the rise in CO2 levels.

That’s because the rise of the ocean’s temperature releases CO2, vast amounts of which are trapped in them.
It’s the rise of the temperature that increases the atmosphere’s CO2, not the other way round.
CO2 is always one step behind.

Are all of these statements mostly true? Have I left out any significant points in the ‘basics of global warming’? Which points, if any, are controversial? Which points are most often disputed by those who deny global warming (or human-caused global warming)?

There is no denial that the temperature rises. It’s been rising since the last Ice Age (remember the Neadertals in Europe?).

What is being denied is that there is a sudden peak and that it is caused by humans.

The rise is relative gradual, with it’s ups and downs. Sometimes it evens falls, significantly. Remember the “small ice age” in medieval Europe. But the general trend is a steady rise.

And there is no evidence that it is caused by humans. Humans do change the environment, in many ways. If you cut thousands of trees and create cement cities… yes, that changes the local environment. But not the Earth’s temperature.
The Sun seems to be the guilty one.
As for his affect… wait for him to move a couple of degrees in the sky, and see the difference in the thermometer.
Or better, move yourself to the shadow.
To remind yourself of it’s power…
Strangely, such a strong force of nature is completely ignored by Al Gore and the likes.

And as for CO2…
CO2 is anything but harmful, or “evil”… it is life giving!
What do you think trees are made of? Soil?
No… they are made of carbon… coal…
And where do they find it?
It’s the C of the CO2.
And as for Al Gore…
He can always invest his money on North Canada.
I am sure he will buy land quiet cheap up there.
In 30 years time he will be competing with California.
He will make a fortune :rolleyes: .

[GIGObuster]

@here_and_there

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (for the Earth’s atmosphere). It plays a small part in the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects

Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

@here_and_there

I am not saying that it is so.
But, if it so…So, what?
Humans also produce a lot of… bricks… and potatoes.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can’t be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

@here_and_there

That’s because the rise of the ocean’s temperature releases CO2, vast amounts of which are trapped in them.
It’s the rise of the temperature that increases the atmosphere’s CO2, not the other way round.
CO2 is always one step behind.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

@here_and_there

There is no denial that the temperature rises. It’s been rising since the last Ice Age (remember the Neadertals in Europe?).

What is being denied is that there is a sudden peak and that it is caused by humans.

The rise is relative gradual, with it’s ups and downs. Sometimes it evens falls, significantly. Remember the “small ice age” in medieval Europe. But the general trend is a steady rise.

And there is no evidence that it is caused by humans. Humans do change the environment, in many ways. If you cut thousands of trees and create cement cities… yes, that changes the local environment. But not the Earth’s temperature.
The Sun seems to be the guilty one.

As for his affect… wait for him to move a couple of degrees in the sky, and see the difference in the thermometer.
Or better, move yourself to the shadow.
To remind yourself of it’s power…
Strangely, such a strong force of nature is completely ignored by Al Gore and the likes.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

@here_and_there

And as for CO2…
CO2 is anything but harmful, or “evil”… it is life giving!
What do you think trees are made of? Soil?
No… they are made of carbon… coal…
And where do they find it?
It’s the C of the CO2.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a “pollutant”, and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

@here_and_there

And as for Al Gore…
He can always invest his money on North Canada.
I am sure he will buy land quiet cheap up there.
In 30 years time he will be competing with California.
He will make a fortune :rolleyes: .

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.

Please consult Skeptical Science before posting, it is a good resource to at least become aware of what the scientists are aware of, so as to not sound like if you are not aware of the march of science.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

[Carl_Pham]

The main weakness in your syllogism is that recent global temperature (meaning over the past 200 years, not 500-year averages over the past million years) is quite difficult to measure. You have to add together temperature readings from a nonuniform distribution of non-identical thermometers that use different measuring protocols, and attempt to correct for changing local circumstances (e.g. urban heat island effects, local weather variations, historical variation in quality and quantity of record-keeping). It’s not nearly as simple as just putting a giant thermometer on the Earth’s surface and saying this is THE temperature of the Earth, and let’s subtract it from a similar definitive reading taken by Lord So-and-So in 1450.

It’s also worth bearing in mind we are talking about very small changes – tenths of a degree per decade – and they are hugely swamped by year-to-year variations due to short-term variations in solar insolation, cloud cover, volcanic ash, ice cover, and many things we don’t even understand yet. You are trying to extract a very small signal from an immense amount of noise. To be 100% confident you’ve done it right is to be foolishly overconfident. You can look for yourself:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

The second problem is that even with the best will in the world, no one can find any increase in the global mean temperature since roughly 1998, and, unfortunately, this is at the lowest extreme of predicted models of temperature correlation to atmospheric CO2. If the current “pause” in global warming goes on much longer, it will no longer be possible to consider current models of the dependence of temperature on atmospheric CO2 levels to be plausible. As it is now, they are clearly at least a little flawed in ways and for reasons we do not yet understand.

Science is, of course, like that, particularly science of such a complicated system like a planet’s atmosphere and heat budget, so nobody should be surprised that there are surprises awaiting a closer look, and even that the whole originating hypothesis – that industrial-age CO2 emission is driving a massive rise in planetary temperature – may be need refinement, substantial modification, or outright abandonment as the experiment data accumulates.

Unfortunately, the issue seems to have become a weird touchstone for culture clash, rather the way evolution – otherwise a fairly obscure and minor aspect of biology – has. Many people are highly invested in Being 100% Right about their point of view on this, which is both highly unscientific – no scientist worth his salt is ever 100% confident of being right about anything – and unnecessarily divisive.

[GIGObuster]

@Carl_Pham

The main weakness in your syllogism is that recent global temperature (meaning over the past 200 years, not 500-year averages over the past million years) is quite difficult to measure. You have to add together temperature readings from a nonuniform distribution of non-identical thermometers that use different measuring protocols, and attempt to correct for changing local circumstances (e.g. urban heat island effects, local weather variations, historical variation in quality and quantity of record-keeping). It’s not nearly as simple as just putting a giant thermometer on the Earth’s surface and saying this is THE temperature of the Earth, and let’s subtract it from a similar definitive reading taken by Lord So-and-So in 1450.

It’s also worth bearing in mind we are talking about very small changes – tenths of a degree per decade – and they are hugely swamped by year-to-year variations due to short-term variations in solar insolation, cloud cover, volcanic ash, ice cover, and many things we don’t even understand yet. You are trying to extract a very small signal from an immense amount of noise. To be 100% confident you’ve done it right is to be foolishly overconfident. You can look for yourself:

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research | University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

The second problem is that even with the best will in the world, no one can find any increase in the global mean temperature since roughly 1998, and, unfortunately, this is at the lowest extreme of predicted models of temperature correlation to atmospheric CO2. If the current “pause” in global warming goes on much longer, it will no longer be possible to consider current models of the dependence of temperature on atmospheric CO2 levels to be plausible. As it is now, they are clearly at least a little flawed in ways and for reasons we do not yet understand.

And it would be a very valid concern if there had not been an even more pronounced pause and even cooling in the 70s, the reason why I do not see a problem with confidence is that back in the 70s popular media based their “we are headed to an ice age” on what a few scientists reported; however, most scientists even in the middle of a pause predicted that warming was coming.

Nowadays the scientists with better tools and even more of a consensus are telling us that the current pause was reported as likely as before and that warming is coming after this, of course when one looks at the oceans one can see were all the heat is going and once the cycle that is masking the warming in the surface alone ends the CO2 that is still keeping the warming up will be here with us still, only wishful tinkling is maintaining that we should expect cooling to come next.

Are we heading into global cooling?

Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up

[sbunny8]

Yes, iiandyiii, everything on your list is mostly true. Minor nitpick: fossil fuels are not “minerals”. They are hydrocarbons, which are organic compounds. Between the choices of “animal, mineral, or vegetable”, I would classify them as “vegetable”. Overall, I give your list 9 points out of 10 for accuracy.

I would say the following are well established facts:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Higher levels of CO2 increase the greenhouse effect. This was proven in laboratory experiments as far back as the 1800s. The technology used in heat seeking missiles makes use of this knowledge.

2. From air bubbles in ice cores, we know that CO2 levels in the last few million years tend to fluctuate between 190 and 290 ppm. The normal trend is that when we’re going into an ice age it drops about 1 ppm each century and when we are coming out of an ice age it rises about 4 ppm each century. In the last 100 years, we’ve seen CO2 go up from 290 to 400 and it’s going up faster and faster. Not only are these measurements outside the normal range found in the ice cores, the rate of increase is a couple orders of magnitude higher.

3. Humans burn fossil fuels which releases CO2 which was previously sequestered in the ground. The rate at which we burn fossil fuels is higher now than ever.

4. Estimates of the amount of CO2 released from burning fossil fuels are rather close to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

5. In the past, global average surface temperatures have risen and fallen in a rather predictable cycle based on natural forces. The primary forces include wobbles in Earth’s orbit and changes in our sun’s energy output. The secondary forces include water vapor, CO2, methane, etc.

6. The normal cycle is that those primary forces make a tiny increase in global average temperature and that tiny increase activates the secondary forces which amplify the effect and cause the temperature to go even higher. Eventually the primary forces change again and then the secondaries react likewise and temperature goes back down again.

7. We just came out of an ice age about 10,000 years ago and, if the normal cycle were to repeat itself, you would expect that we’d be slowly slowly slowly sliding into the next ice age over the next 20,000 years or so. That does not appear to be happening.

8. In fact, the temperature has risen by about one and a half degrees Fahrenheit during the last 100 years. We have looked into whether this could be caused by an increase in our sun’s output and the answer is a resounding No.

AFAIK, none of those seven facts are in dispute by people who are actually familiar with the results which have been found by scientists studying climate. Skeptics like to point out that in the ice core records CO2 lags behind temperature. This shows they don’t understand item #6. Less informed skeptics will say that temperature change is totally natural. This shows they don’t understand #2. Sometimes they say CO2 is beneficial, not harmful. This shows they don’t understand #1. They say humans can’t possibly affect something as big as our planet. This shows they don’t understand #4. You can do the calculation yourself. Look up how many barrels of oil and how many tons of coal we’ve burned. Look up how much CO2 comes from a barrel of oil and how much from a ton of coal. Take the total tons of CO2 and divide by the mass of the atmosphere in tons. You should end up with a tiny decimal. Multiply that decimal by 1,000,000 to express it in ppm, which stands for “parts per million”. I got 107 ppm. Meanwhile, the actual CO2 levels have gone up from 290 to 400. Gee what a coincidence.

Skeptics also like to say that correlation doesn’t imply causation. But it’s not true that we are relying on mere correlation to make the case that humans are the cause of climate change. Climate scientists have looked at literally hundreds of possible explanations for why the global surface temperature readings have gone up and none of those explanations even comes close to matching the observation as well as the explanation that it’s because humans are burning fossil fuels.

[Quartz]

@GIGObuster

So much opinion, very little science.

Except every word I wrote is scientifically and factually correct, and this comment proves what I wrote:

@Quartz

The human factors in the argument have not helped: it’s become semi-religious, with those who dare to question the orthodox warmist line being ostracised and denounced like heretics.

[GIGObuster]

@Quartz

Except every word I wrote is scientifically and factually correct.

As the example showed, that is not the point, it is misleading to apply the say so of scientists not being careful with the “correlation is not causation” in the case of the greenhouse gases. Climate scientists are not falling for that mistake as much as you want them to be.

@Quartz

, and this comment proves what I wrote:

Not really, as pointed before when contrarians resort to tell the ones pointing at the science as them using religion or semi-religion the reality is that that is also a boiler plate all purpose point made by pseudo scientists. It only shows that there are no good ideas to counteract the basic science.

[GIGObuster]

@sbunny8

Skeptics also like to say that correlation doesn’t imply causation. But it’s not true that we are relying on mere correlation to make the case that humans are the cause of climate change. Climate scientists have looked at literally hundreds of possible explanations for why the global surface temperature readings have gone up and none of those explanations even comes close to matching the observation as well as the explanation that it’s because humans are burning fossil fuels.

Indeed, and the whole post was an excellent one sbunny8.

[lisiate]

@Fishtar

…
Fact - Ten billion tons of CO2 were released in 2012 through the burning of fossil fuels.
(To help visualize this, 10 billion ton of CO2 would fill up 7,300,000,000,000,000 standard party balloons. And that is just for 2012)

I’m struggling to visualise 7,300 trillion party balloons.

How about 1,515 Hoover dams?