Are There STILL People Who Deny Global Warming Is Happening?

Great Debates
81

Well, jshore got ahead of me and posted the best historical (my strength is in history, and a little bit of early computer simulations/tests, but I have other science connections) site on the subject, but the most important part for you is here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

You really need to read it to see how scientists had at first good reasons** to dismiss** the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, how later scientists began to see that greenhouse gases were a problem, and the discoveries and experiments that vindicated the early lonely voices on this subject.

The history of how we got there is one reason why I have no respect for others that try to pass as a fact that the current consensus among scientists came because it was/is an “article of faith”.

82

Would a massive tree-planting effort make a difference?

83

AFAICR forests are one effective CO2 sink, unfortunately we are threatening that sink and we can not depend on them for all the sequestration needs. (Calculations for the future levels of CO2 already take most of this “missing” sink into account)

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/one-fifth-fossil-fuel-emissions-absorbed-threatened-forests-18684.html

84

The amount of CO2 that all of Earth’s volcanoes emit in a year is on average less than 1% of global CO2 emissions. Anthropogenic sources emit a hundredfold the amount of CO2 in a year as volcanoes do.

The volcanic emission which actually causes the climate to change in a meaningful sense is SO2 and other sulfuric gasses. These cause the global temperature to decrease for a period of roughly 3 years and then “fall out of the sky”.

85

Well, I don’t think there is a short answer to such a question. The best way to understand it is to read through parts of the IPCC report that talks about the scientific basis ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html ) but admittedly that is a bit daunting.

Just, in very general terms though: We know how much CO2 we are emitting and that about half of it is remaining in the atmosphere, causing the rise in CO2 that we measure and that has brought CO2 to levels not seen in at least the last 750000 years for which we have ice core data (and which takes us through something like 7 glacial - interglacial cycles. We also know quite accurately the radiative effect that additional CO2 causes (about 4 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 levels) and it is easy to calculate from the Stefan-Boltzmann Eq. for radiative equilibrium how much temperature rise that would cause without any “feedbacks” in the climate system (about 1.0-1.2 C).

We also know that there will be a positive water vapor feedback that occurs because as the climate warms, more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere (roughly speaking, the relative humidity is expected to remain about constant) and this causes further warming since water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas (i.e., it absorbs infrared radiation); this increase in water vapor has in fact been observed by satellites. We also know that there will be a positive “ice-albedo” feedback due to ice and snow melting because of the fact that this will reduce the amount of solar radiation that gets reflected back out into space. Together, I believe, that these two feedbacks (minus the effects of a negative feedback called the “lapse rate feedback”) are expected to about double the amount of temperature rise that we get.

The other major feedback is how clouds change as the climate warms…and that is the largest remaining source of uncertainty. Clouds are difficult for climate models to handle well (because they operate on scales much smaller than the grid scales in the models) but all the different models that have been developed independently by a variety of research groups seem to show the effects of clouds will be a positive feedback, or at best, neutral.

A negative feedback from clouds seems like the only thing that could possibly save us from having substantial warming due to increases in greenhouse gases. And, in addition to climate models not predicting this, such a negative feedback would make it very hard to explain past climate events, such as the warming between the last glacial period and now and the response of the climate to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. In fact, it is from these various past events that the IPCC has arrived at its likely range for climate sensitivity of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2.

Finally, climate models have been able to reproduce the instrumental temperature record (available going back to the mid 1800s) accurately, and especially the temperature rise since the 1970s only if they include the anthropogenic forcings due to greenhouse gases (and a negative forcing due to aerosol pollutants) in addition to natural forcings such as changes in solar irradiance or volcanic eruptions. Various spatial and temporal patterns of the rise also suggest that it is due to greenhouse gases. Of course, one can never rule out the possibility that there is some natural forcing or variability that hasn’t been thought of that is responsible for the rise. However, in that case, one still has to explain not only what this is but also has to explain why the known forcing due to greenhouse gas increases is not manifesting itself.

86

Anyone who uses short-term variation in temperature as an argument for or against global warming is practicing bad science.

If you look at the temperature record of the past 100 years, you definitely see an upward trend. You can also see significant variation in the year-to-year temperature.

Look at this chart. The trend line is definitely positive. But even so, you can see that there was a period between 1954 and 1968 where the temperature declined, and it did not recover to pre-1954 levels until 1971 - seventeen years later. There are numerous periods where the weather declined or increased steadily for a period of 4, 5, or 6 years.

Right now, we’re seeing a period of cooling. This does not disprove global warming, since it’s in the range of variance we’ve seen in the past. If that cooling continues for a longer period, say another decade, then we’re going to start getting into the range were we have to start thinking that maybe something else is going on.

Also, if the cooling is the result of a random walk with an upwards bias, then we DO have to re-adjust predictions of future climate based on current temperatures. (i.e. it’s still increasing at .3 degrees per year or whatever, but since we’re starting from a lower average, it won’t be as hot in 50 years as we thought it would be).

On the other hand, if the cooling is the result of a temporary change that’s masking a constant force, then we should expect to see higher than average temperature increases once the force causing the change dissipates, until the temperate regresses back to the mean. In which case long-term temperature predictions don’t change.

I hope, however, that the people who are (rightly) claiming that short-term variance doesn’t affect the long term trend don’t turn around and get hyper-alarmist if the short-term variance goes the other way and we have a few really hot years. I hope they’ll be just a vigorous in defending the reality of the models against short-term variance when it works in favor of their policy goals as they are when it works against them.

87

Sam,

I basically agree with what you said.

However, just to prevent confusion if people click on that link, I just want to point out that the chart that you linked to is not a record of global temperatures. It is, I am guessing, likely a record of U.S. temperatures. (I am guessing that because I know that U.S. temperatures had peaks in 1934 and 1998 that were essentially equivalent.) Since the U.S. is a fairly small part of the total surface area of the globe (2%…or something like that), the data is a lot noisier…because local variability is more important…and, in particular, the long term trend is less apparent than in the global temperature record, such as that shown here.

88

True, and my apologies if I grabbed the wrong graph, but even the smoother global chart shows a number of periods of long decline (and long increase) of temperature.

I do have a couple of quibbles about that chart - or rather, about the way that chart might be used. In my day job, I do data visualization stuff from time to time, and I’m very familiar with ways in which a graphic can be deceiving. A couple of things jumped out at me about that chart:

  • The use of blue and red colors to show changes around a zero point could mislead people into thinking that there is a fundamental major shift that occurred when there isn’t. You can really see that in this graphic, which seems to me to be intentionally designed to make Obama’s deficits look much worse than Bush’s.

  • The scale of the chart is set up such that a layman looking at it might conclude that temperature is wildly variable and skyrocketing. Overlay the same change data on a temperature chart that is scaled from 0 to 100 degrees, and it won’t have nearly the impact. Of course, that just gets you into arguments about what the ‘appropriate’ scale is.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that graphic - for its intended audience it may be perfectly appropriate. It also may be designed to make the problem look as bad as possible while still showing accurate numbers. I don’t kow. This is basically just a digression on a subject that interests me.

89

These people deny it. They have 269 facebook fans, after all. I mean, how much more grass roots support do you need?

True. And a whole lot of people will change their opinion when fed a steaming load of horse shit, too.

The more I look around that page, the more I am convinced it’s a parody web site.

90

The global thing has me bugged a little bit, since we’ve just had the coldest summer I recall. Anomaly of course; when something is your religion, all that is in conflict is an anomaly.

The attribution to human-produced CO2 has me bugged a little bit, since models only give CO2 about a 20% contribution out of all greenhouse gases, and since anthropogenic sources of CO2 are only about 5% of all CO2.

Using melting Antarctic ice bugs me a little bit, since it’s below freezing down there. Any melting is from warmer ocean water, and current notions seem to have suggested (so far) that the oceans aren’t warming as fast because they are a better heat sink. Therefore either the models are wrong or something else–underwater volcanoes?..shifting currents?–is thinning that ice. If our models are crappy, what does that say about our ability to model?

Finding an AGW bugbear under every Polar bear sniffing around human camps bugs me a little bit, since it seems like such a good example of confirmation bias.

The hysteria and the religious fervor with which AGW Believers have embraced the Great Cause bugs me a lot, mostly because I am just a cantankerous old geezer who has seen causes and fervor come and go. I think we have an atavistic need for causes, and AGW fits nicely.

Sure; maybe the earth is in a warming trend. Maybe we’ll cook and die. In some cosmic scheme, so what? The earth would be better off without humans, if you are just bugged about AGW because you love Gaia so much. And the root cause–even if AGW turns out to be a serious truth–is that there are too many damn people inhabiting the earth.

So what really really bugs me is that AGW Believers embrace the politically correct Great Cause of AGW and do not seem to exert the same fervor for the politically incorrect solution of population control and reduction.

In summary, just to be cantankerous, I’ll be the AGW Denier and take the hits. I won’t debate it; I’ll just go sulk until the Great Cause dies the death of all Great Causes so far, or until the Big Comet beans us while we are worrying about CO2.

And yes, in another thread I put it on the line with Sentient Meat. He’s gonna wear a placard saying he’s cured of believing in AGW if a hottest year doesn’t show up soon, and I’m gonna post a photo of me with a placard attesting my newfound belief if such a hottest year does show up.

Stay tuned.

91

You told us before that you understood that it was indeed an anomaly.

I guess you were not sincere when you told us that it was insulting to you that I had assumed that you missed why it was an anomaly.

Please read the history of why we got were we are, religion had nothing to do with it.

92

Global Warming is often referred to as “Climate Change” because by region the actual effects will vary. Some places may on average grow cooler as things progress. Of course, globally, this may have been a cooler year.

93

What are you opinions on brain surgery, computer processor architecture and the engineering of mega skyscrapers?

Because I’m sure you’re just as qualified to dismiss the vast majority of experts in those fields too. :smiley:

94

For the true Zealot, absolutely every possible permutation is a confirmation of Obvious Truth.

I do not personally hold to a simplistic view that an anomaly is a reason for not Believing. I hold to the observation that, for the Zealot, the anomaly is an anomaly and the expected effect is a Confirmation. Where too many anomalies or unexpected events arise, we will examine not the Core Belief but only that our Understanding is Weak, and that it is a Mystery. Should the Antarctic ice sheets melt faster than any model has predicted, we will take that as confirmation of AGW Truth (it is at least in the expected direction of the Plague) and not an indication that we have very little idea how the hell the earth works or that our modeling itself is inadequate to predict consequences. If the seasons come earlier: AGW. If the seasons come later: AGW. If some areas are cooler/drier/wetter/hotter: AGW.

I also hold to the view that, for the most part, nearly all of us believe anything because peers we trust believe, and not because of personal expertise. And I hold to the belief that that this inclination extends to scientists as well, and that even brilliant thinkers have a long history of clinging to and defending incorrect paradigms. Epicycles upon epicycles.

But I’m not on a crusade about it, so it’s best to consider me an unsaved wretch, headed for AGW-induced hell. Pray for me as I go on my unrepentent way, and take solace that you and fellow Believers have found salvation for the earth in the loving arms of Truth.

Even the tone of the title of the OP reminds me of a missionary desperate to reach out and convert the last of the unsaved to the Blessed Truth and Freedom of Finally Accepting Salvation for the Earth.

( All the while sinning on the side, but that’s another thread about whether or not belief means actually accepting that the only reasonable consequence is giving up Things.)

95

In my opinion, much of medicine is not evidence-based nor does it really adequately address the core problem of maintaining a healthy population.

As to computers, I find them much more predictable than AGW predictions. (Well, except for this old girl running an old version of windows) :wink:

I am unclear where mega skyscrapers fit into the discussion but if you are making a general point that, because some science is spectacular, all science must be spectacular, I find myself in disagreement.

96

Fallacious argument - for instance, I am a firm believer in the validity of AGW, and I also strongly advocate for population reduction too (through education, women’s rights and social upliftment). I am not the only one.

97

My apologies…I did not mean to argue for anything. I was only making an observation.

Best wishes reducing the population through those means. It occurs to me “social upliftment” is gonna warm us up a titchy bit if we are going to get that developing population some decent Stuff. I’m looking for Social Uplifting of the developing world to contribute mightily to CO2 production as they try desperately to catch up with us.

98

Fallacious argument again - nowhere have I equated social upliftment with “Stuff”. Not that I think it’s not possible to both have Stuff and do something about AGW, if done properly, but that’s irrelevant. The kind of social upliftment I’m talking about is ready availability of contraception, medical care and the like, not TVs and cars.

99

Not sure where you are getting this number from. It is in the right ballpark for the CO2 contribution to the NATURAL greenhouse effect that warms the earth by ~33 C. However, for the additional forcing that we are causing, more than half of it is attributable to CO2 with the rest attributable to CH4, NO2, halocarbons, and tropospheric ozone. (See Figure SPM2 here.) Because there are also negative forcings due to aerosol pollutants, the best estimate is that the current net anthropogenic forcing is about equal to the anthropogenic forcing due to CO2 alone (although with large error bars because of the uncertainty in the aerosol forcing).

This is a deceptive number often quoted by “skeptics” to confuse people. The fact is that there are large exchanges of CO2 between the oceans and atmosphere and between the biosphere and atmosphere. However, these exchanges are essentially just moving the same CO2 around…and that is why during the pre-industrial era, the CO2 level was quite stable around 280ppm. What we are doing is taking a source of carbon that has long been locked away from the atmosphere and rapidly liberating it. This has caused CO2 levels to rise to almost 390ppm (and increasing at about 2ppm / yr). By contrast, ice cores show CO2 levels were always between 180 and 300ppm over the last 750,000 years (which takes us through something like 7 glacial - interglacial cycles) and it has likely been several million years since CO2 levels have been this high.

The oceans don’t warm quite as fast but they still warm. And, I believe both the models and the data show the most rapid warming occurring in West Antarctica, particularly the peninsula.

Well, you might not care if humans survive or not but I think most people would like humans to, but would like it to happen in a way that preserves the earth and its biosphere and climate system in its current form rather than radically altering it, causing major species extinctions, etc.

Actually, a lot of the people who believe in AGW are also those who have been working the hardest to push for population control, especially the availability of contraceptives for women throughout the world. And, at least in the U.S., many of the AGW “skeptics” or ones who have been most resistant to taking action (like Bush) are people who have undermined this (often because they are so anti-abortion that they oppose funds for family planning).

100

One question, just to help my own (very limited, half-assed) understanding:

Is it basically the argument that there’s this whole CO2 natural cycle out there, and that what anthropogenic machinations are doing is tipping the balance? So the models, therefore, which create concern around the sensitivity of forcing are essentially built around the notion of additional input into a balanced system versus percent of total contribution?
In simple terms, the bucket is already full. It may be a 50 gallon bucket, but if I add a cup of water, all of the water that spilled out and created a problem was because I added a cup, even though that cup is a small fraction of the whole volume of water…

And one comment:
Sure, there is probably a technical concern for overpopulation, but there’s no zeal for it and no zealots. Such “concerns”–on average–boil down to expressing a concern or suggesting half-assed solutions such as birth control, or social uplifting, or whatever. Half-assed, not because more draconian choices are acceptable choices, but half-assed because they aren’t gonna work. The dilemma is identical to the AGW dilemma: only draconian measures would work and we all find draconian measures completely unacceptable. At least I do. But there is no way the root problem for ALL these anthropogenic issues–too many people!–receives the same amount of press, activity, zealotry and ire as does AGW, the Great Cause du Jour.

And that’s what’s contributed to me being not so much an AGW Denier as a bemused cynic of almost all human behaviour patterns.

But of course on a message board, there is a certain amount of perverse notoriety in being an AGW Denier, so me 'n Sentient Meat have put skin in the game.

Interesting article on MSN.com today, out of the UN:

“Carbon dioxide, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, is the main cause of global warming, trapping the sun’s energy in the atmosphere. The world’s average temperature has already risen 1.4 degrees since the 19th century.
Much of projected rise in temperature is because of developing nations, which aren’t talking much about cutting their emissions, scientists said at a United Nations press conference Thursday. China alone adds nearly 2 degrees to the projections…
Even if the developed world cuts its emissions by 80 percent and the developing world cuts theirs in half by 2050, as some experts propose, the world is still facing a 3-degree increase by the end of the century, said Robert Corell, a prominent U.S. climate scientist who helped oversee the update.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33011378/ns/us_news-environment