Are There STILL People Who Deny Global Warming Is Happening?

[Quasimodem]

What??? Melting ice can re-freeze itself, Waldo? Tell that to the glaciers.

Animals who were NEVER meant to be in our habitats will suddenly GO BACK???

FOR WHAT REASON?

We have either run them out by stripping the forests, or hunger has forced them into our environment.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Quasimodem

What??? Melting ice can re-freeze itself, Waldo? Tell that to the glaciers.

For what purpose?

You cited it as evidence. If you’ll admit the opposite phenomenon would be evidence for the opposite conclusion, I’ll then see whether we can point to that opposite phenomenon. Tell me what you feel would falsify your position, and then I’ll tell you whether the glaciers start falsifying your position.

You asked: “Aren’t melting glaciers an indication?”

My answer: “They are, if the opposite would indicate the opposite.”

Are we agreed?

[BrainGlutton]

From SourceWatch:

Common threads of Climate Skeptics Arguments

In a paper reviewing the common arguments of the global warming skeptics, Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, noted that “the various climate sceptics hold very different positions. We can distinguish trend skeptics (who deny there is global warming), the attribution sceptics (who accept the global warming trend but see natural causes for this), and the impact sceptics (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial). Representatives of the various skeptics’ camps quarrel, sometimes ferociously, in internet forums.”[2]

‘Trend skeptics’, he suggested, are “a gradually vanishing breed” as public understanding of the reality of global warming has risen. These sceptics commonly claim that the surface temperature measurements have been distorted by ther proximity to urban areas, which is referred to as the ‘urban heat island effect’. 'In fact, the measured trends have already been adjusted to allow for this effect by comparing adjacent urban and rural stations. The warming above the oceans as measured by ships, the global retreat of glaciers, and the declining Arctic sea ice provide further evidence against this claim," wrote Rahmstorf. These sceptics also often claim that satellite measurements show little, is any, warming trend since the data was first collected in 1979. After allowing for various factors which make direct comparison between data sets difficult, Rahmstorf wrote that the data "show trends between 0.08°C and 0.26°C per decade, compared to 0.17°C per decade found in surface measurements.[2]

‘Attribution skeptics’ on the other hand argue that while warming is occurring, it can’t be attributed to human activities. These skeptics argue that Co2 emissions originate from the oceans or that increases in CO2 do not result in warming. “The oceans have certainly not released CO2 into the atmosphere; on the contrary, they have absorbed some of the extra fossil CO2 load. (Incidentally, this is leading to an acidification of sea water, causing considerable damage to coral reefs and other marine organisms, even without any climate change),” Rahmstorf wrote. While there are uncertainties about the feedbacks caused by increased greenhouse gases, Rahmstorf noted that “many studies using different approaches have provided increasingly hard evidence that the most likely value of the “climate sensitivity” (i.e. the equilibrium response of the climate to a doubling of the CO2 concentration) is close to 3°C. This results independently both from our physical understanding of the various feedbacks (which can be observed in today’s climate, e.g. in the seasonal cycle) and from an analysis of the role played by CO2 during past climate changes.”[2]

He also noted that arguing that strong feedbacks from increased CO2 could not also claim that warming was caused by other factors such as solar activity. Rahmstorf notes that “solar variations cannot explain the warming in the 20th century. For one thing, they are not large enough; the radiative effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is by now several times stronger. And while reconstructions of solar activity do indicate a rise until 1940, they show no significant trend since then. The same is true of measurements of cosmic rays.”[2]

The ‘impact skeptics’ argue that there are positive consequences from global warming, such as increased an extension of the range of agriculture or increased productivity. “In the absence of climate protection measures, we will probably see a warming by several degrees in this century. The most recent comparable period of major global warming occurred when the last ice age ended ~15,000 years ago: at that time, the climate warmed by approx. 5°C in global mean. This warming had serious implications for man and ecosystems. But the process unfolded over a period of 5,000 years – humankind is now threatening to bring about a similarly large climate change within the space of a century. This extraordinarily rapid change would most likely exceed the adaptive capacity of man and nature,” Rahmstorf wrote.[2]

[jshore]

@dracoi

I guess it all depends on how you load up the term “global warming.”

If all you mean is “Recent observed temperatures show an upwards trend,” then it’s pretty hard to disagree with that statement. The numbers are what they are.

True…But, if you hang out in certain places, you will indeed find people who claim that the temperature record is so contaminated by urban heat island effects or what have you that in fact it was warmer back in the 1930s…or whatever.

And, of course, there are lots of people arguing that it has been cooling for the last several years, which is technically true if you compute a temperature trend and don’t bother with trying to compute any error bars on it. (It is basically the equivalent of arguing against the seasonal cycle based on a week in October when the temperature here in Rochester exhibits an upward temperature trend.)

(After all, climate models are continually being adjusted; temp increases have been lower than expected even though CO2 increases have been higher than expected. 40 years ago, the worry was that we were entering an ice age. Oops.)

This parenthetical remark contains a lot of questionable statements. First, I don’t know what “continually being adjusted” means. Sure, people are continuing to improve the models but is that a bad thing?

And, your statement about temperatures is again suffering from the issue of noise. In fact, if you consider the hindcast/forecast made by the models starting in 1990, the actual temperature trends tended to be at the high end of the forecasts until about 2005. The La Nina of the last few years has brought the trend down somewhat but it is still in about the middle of the range. See here for a nice analysis.

As for the worry 40 years ago, it may be true that there was some worry about that in the popular press (spurred in part by a few cold winters in the early / mid 70s and the understanding that there had been a modest cooling trend since the 1940s). However, there was still more concern about warming than cooling in the scientific literature and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in a 1975 report basically concluded that, while the future course of the climate was an important question and we understood some of the different affects that would cause warming or cooling, we were not yet at the point where we could give an answer as to what that future course was likely to be. See here [4 MB PDF file] for a full discussion of this past. Constrast to what the Academy and its analogs in the other G8+5 nations are saying today.

If you mean “Man-made greenhouse gases are causing a long-term warming trend that we can stop through rapid and severe political measures,” I think you’re more full of hot air than the Earth is. The more right global warming is, the less it’s the kind of problem we can solve. We’re better off spending $200 billion on better dams than on emissions controls.

Well, surely you would agree that fossil fuels are a finite resource and we will have to wean ourselves off of them eventually. Wouldn’t it be better to do this before, rather than after, we have substantially altered the earth’s climate?

[Quasimodem]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

For what purpose?

You cited it as evidence. If you’ll admit the opposite phenomenon would be evidence for the opposite conclusion, I’ll then see whether we can point to that opposite phenomenon. Tell me what you feel would falsify your position, and then I’ll tell you whether the glaciers start falsifying your position.

You asked: “Aren’t melting glaciers an indication?”

My answer: “They are, if the opposite would indicate the opposite.”

Are we agreed?

No.

Sober up or rephrase.

You are polluting this thread.

Quasi

[BrainGlutton]

@dracoi

I guess it all depends on how you load up the term “global warming.”

If all you mean is “Recent observed temperatures show an upwards trend,” then it’s pretty hard to disagree with that statement. The numbers are what they are.

However, if you mean “Man-made greenhouse gases are causing a long-term warming trend,” then I’m not entirely convinced. I’ll agree that the bulk of the evidence supports the conclusion, but it isn’t the kind of position that can be conclusively proved as a fact. (After all, climate models are continually being adjusted; temp increases have been lower than expected even though CO2 increases have been higher than expected. 40 years ago, the worry was that we were entering an ice age. Oops.)

If you mean “Man-made greenhouse gases are causing a long-term warming trend that we can stop through rapid and severe political measures,” I think you’re more full of hot air than the Earth is. The more right global warming is, the less it’s the kind of problem we can solve. We’re better off spending $200 billion on better dams than on emissions controls.

Funny how that works . . .

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Quasimodem

Sober up or rephrase. You are polluting this thread.

I’ll gladly rephrase.

You asked whether the evidence is, well, evident. You asked whether melting glaciers are an indication. I am therefore asking you what evidence would falsify the claim. I am therefore asking what glacial activity would indicate the opposite.

Imagine we eventually face global cooling. What evidence could then be cited to establish it? What glacial activity would then serve as an indication?

[jshore]

@Aji_de_Gallina

• Is it on average colder that it was 10 years ago? YES

By what measure? It is true that one can get negative trendlines over some periods of time, but with huge errorbars that make it essentially meaningless. (And, in fact, at least for the HADCRUT3 record, the period for the trend computation has to be either just about exactly 11.5 years [so it includes the 1998 super El Nino but not the cooler years before it] or less than 9 years.)

• Have scientists been able to predict short term trend in temperature without fiddling endelessly with models? NO

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. In fact, short term temperature fluctuations depend sensitively on initial conditions and thus the models aren’t good at predicting them. Ironically, the longer term trend, which is dependent on more basic issues of forcing, is easier to compute than the shorter term fluctuations.

• Do the same models used to predict future temperature rises work backwards 200 years? NO

In fact, they do quite a good job hindcasting the instrumental temperature record, when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included. See, for example, here. (Admittedly, there is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing, which limits the degree to which this good fit can constrain the climate sensitivity to CO2 and hence the prediction of future warming.)

• Is Global Warming so insidious that it will cause more rain were itis bad, less rain were it is bad, more temperature where it is bad and less temperature where it is bad? NO

Well, the problem is that we and the flora and fauna tend to be adjusted to the climate…and especially the sea levels…where they are. Furthermore, a warmer climate will tend to have a more intense hydrological cycle which means that the heaviest precipitation events will tend to get heavier. At the same time, the warming will tend to lead to more rapid drying and hence the possibility of worse droughts. (I also believe that generally less rainfall in the U.S. Southwest is one of the more robust regional projections found in the climate models.)

• Can the ammount of CO2 be reduced or even levelled off at present levels without draconian, painful rules? NO WAY

Well, it certainly can’t be leveled off at present levels, but we can start to level it off. It was at 280ppm before the industrial revolution and is approaching 390ppm now. There have been various goals of leveling it off between 450 and 550ppm. This will certainly involve changes to how our society produces and uses energy, but then these changes are going to need to be made eventually anyway (since fossil fuels are a finite resource), so we would be smart to put the market mechanisms in place today to have that happen sooner rather than later.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

• Have scientists been able to predict short term trend in temperature without fiddling endelessly with models? NO

:dubious:

How reliable are climate models?

What the science says…

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have successfully predicted future climate change.

@Aji_de_Gallina

• Do the same models used to predict future temperature rises work backwards 200 years? NO

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/clueless-2.php

The latest study on this found:

Along with his Scripps colleague, David Pierce, Barnett used a combination of computer models and hard, observed evidence to reach their conclusions. They determined that warming measured in the world's oceans closely matched the results predicted in computer models for warming caused by human activity.

When the models assessed whether the ocean warming could be caused by volcanic or solar activity, Barnett told reporters, the answer was stark: "Not a chance."

Duffy continues:

The second problem is that temperatures have not risen along with industrialisation over the past 200 years. 

The graph on the right shows that temperatures have actually risen. You really have to work hard to remain as ignorant of this as Duffy is.

Our second pundit is Andrew Bolt (last seen arguing that a cold day in Melbourne was good evidence against global warming) claims

"The truth is that despite the hype, not much about global warming is known for sure, not even how much the Earth has heated, and whether our carbon dioxide (CO2) caused it. So say even lead authors of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose doctored "predictions" are most used to frighten us." 

Doctored predictions? Odd, you would think that the hundreds of scientists whose work went into the IPCC would have noticed if their work had been doctored.

"One of them, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, asks: "Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate models suggest the answer is yes. Real data suggests otherwise."" 

Now this sounds like he is saying that the real data shows no warming and only the climate models show warming, but if you look at the context of his statement you’ll find the real data shows warming at the surface (see graph above) and that Christy’s calculations from satellite measurements also show warming, but not as much. Christy says this contradicts the climate models, but other researchers’ calculations show more warming from the satellite data. And even if the climate models were wrong, it would not follow that we would expect no warming from increase CO2. All you would be able to say is that we don’t know what the effects would be. No scientist has an explanation for the observed warming that does not involve CO2.

@Aji_de_Gallina

• Is Global Warming so insidious that it will cause more rain were itis bad, less rain were it is bad, more temperature where it is bad and less temperature where it is bad? NO

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=1405

Studies show that global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of many kinds of extreme weather. While we can’t attribute a particular heat wave or hurricane to global warming, the trends are clear: Global warming loads the atmospheric dice to roll “heat wave” or “intense storm” more often.

@Aji_de_Gallina

• Can the ammount of CO2 be reduced or even levelled off at present levels without draconian, painful rules? NO WAY

The scientific view is to limit warming to no more than an additional 2 degrees celsius. That is seen as achievable if necessary steps are taken very soon.

[Magiver]

Me, count me as a person who thinks the business of Global Warming is grossly overstated. It is a religion dictated by politics where any research to the contrary goes unfunded by government edict. There is no desire in the debate to apply money to the idea of COOLING the planet. The entire argument is about co2 and how we must end it’s existence at all cost or we shall perish in 50 years. :rolleyes:

[The_Tooth]

Which government? Whose edict?
And don’t tell me “Archie Bunker’s wife”.

[GIGObuster]

@Magiver

Me, count me as a person who thinks the business of Global Warming is grossly overstated. It is a religion dictated by politics where any research to the contrary goes unfunded by government edict. There is no desire in the debate to apply money to the idea of COOLING the planet. The entire argument is about co2 and how we must end it’s existence at all cost or we shall perish in 50 years. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Tell that to Callendar, in the 40’s he proposed that greenhouse gases were going to be a problem, scientists found that the evidence Callendar showed was flawed and after scientists finished with him there was noting left but the feathers.

So, no funding came for more research on greenhouse gases, it was pure luck that the cold war later gave funding to scientists to investigate the atmosphere; you see, they were looking for radioactive elements and chemical interactions in the atmosphere to keep track of what the soviets where doing. Finding what CO2 does in the atmosphere made scientists take another look and ever since the 70’s began to change their tune.

Peculiar religion that one that looks at the evidence.

[Markxxx]

Science doesn’t dispute global warming anymore than evolution. But once again people got it wrong.

Scientists accept evolution but not every one accepts Darwin’s Thoery of Evolution. Natural selection is only one school of thought how evolution comes about.

Global warming is happening but so what? History shows throughout the age of the Earth it has had periods where it is hot and cold.

Those scientists are disputing that global warming now is solely a product of man made things or just a naturally occuring cycle.

Without getting to complex they argue that while certainly man has had an influence on warming, it’s far too little to account for the change, so it’s likely it would’ve happened anyway.

Another thing for example is while the earth got warmer the fact was the temps didn’t come near what they should’ve. Upon investigating they found pollution is blocking the sun and causing less heat to get through so it’s the Earth would’ve been hotter if not for the pollution.

Long story short, educated people aren’t disputing the world’s getting hotter, what they are arguing about is whether this is man made or just another of Earth cycles. Like it or not, we will have another ice age, another mass extinction, and so forth. It’s just a matter of waiting…

[GIGObuster]

@Markxxx

Those scientists are disputing that global warming now is solely a product of man made things or just a naturally occuring cycle.

Not quite, the consensus is that the current warming is not natural.

What they are discussing now is if we should worry a little or a lot. (And what we can do or prepare for)

[BrainGlutton]

@Markxxx

Scientists accept evolution but not every one accepts Darwin’s Thoery of Evolution. Natural selection is only one school of thought how evolution comes about.

:rolleyes: This wouldn’t have anything to do with “intelligent design,” would it?

[cerberus]

Stochastic climate variation is a fact.

The theories are about explaining this variation - one source of variation is atmospheric chemistry - another is solar output.

The heated bits enter regarding the anthrogenic theories.

[Sinaijon]

@Quasimodem

I know there are holocaust deniers, and I’m not an Al Gore fan, but isn’t the evidence… well…evident?

In the previous GW thread, there was a short aside about equating GW skeptics with Holocaust deniers in order to poison the well. I have to admit that I didn’t think there was any intentional connection being made between the two, and thought it was more an appeal to sympathy by the skeptics.

But now I’ve seen an actual example of it. Thanks for fighting my ignorance.

[Blake]

@Sinaijon

In the previous GW thread, there was a short aside about equating GW skeptics with Holocaust deniers in order to poison the well. I have to admit that I didn’t think there was any intentional connection being made between the two, and thought it was more an appeal to sympathy by the skeptics.

But now I’ve seen an actual example of it. Thanks for fighting my ignorance.

Am I allowed to say “I told you so” now?

I’m astounded that anybody could be ignorant that this is precisely why the term “denier” was invented. After all we don’t have “deniers” in any other field of scientific dispute. We have skeptics or opponents. It’s only when your cause is ideological and based on a “truth” that you need to call people deniers.

@Quasimodem

I know there are holocaust deniers, and I’m not an Al Gore fan, but isn’t the evidence… well…evident?

The evidence of a C0.5 degree temperature rise above natural? Because that is what we are talking about. Well there’s evidence of that, but it’s not evidence that you have presented here.

Aren’t melting glaciers an indication?

Maybe, maybe not. It’s still open to debate how much of any shrinkage of any individual glacier is due to global warming.

Polar bears coming into humans’ habitats looking for food?

Polar bears have always come into humans’ habitats looking for food. It has increased as people have shot bears less, and as more food has become available. Same as for all bears.

It may or may not be linked to a change in sea ice, but since scientists are still divided on to what extent, or whether, Arctic ice shrinkage is due to global warming that is pretty weak “evidence”.

Seriously, there is good evidence that the Earth is getting warmer. There is even good evidence that it is anthropogenic. But it’s not the nonsense you’ve presented here.

Your entire position seems like a textbook example of sciencism. It demonstrates a near total ignorance of the science but an almost pathological desire to act as cheerleader for it.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Interestingly, Pacific Gas & Electric and Duke energy have quit the US Chamber of Commerce because the CoC’s policy is still skeptical of global warming. Other companies will probably follow suit.

[Deeg]

I prefer to compare AGW skeptics with Creationists.