CO2, Climate Change, Global Warming and Global Alarm

[Xander]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Many of you who are aruguing that AGW is bullshit, that people are stupid sheep are saying that this graph or that report are the "real science", made by non brainwashed scientists, who have found the truth that has been swept under the carpet.

So clearly if you are arguing based on scientific studies and the research of scientists, you believe in science, is this correct? I mean you arn't arguing based on astrology or greenie "feelings about the bleeding soul of the eart", right? It's empirical science.
Also am I right in saying you arn't doing your own scientific research? As in you arn't going down to Antarctica, doing your own core drills, analysing them in your own lab etc. Nor are you yourself taking interval measurements of temperatures around the world to continue your study which has been running for 50 years, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So if that is true we are relying on research, papers and studies made by people who specialise in empirical factual studies, ie scientists, for our facts. It seems the majority of what is happening in this thread is people are doing their own interpretations of the findings and conclusions that others, (ie. scientists) have made. Now in this thread, some people on PSB have at some stage seemingly looked at a segment of data or graphs, and in their wisdom 'seen past all the bullshit and alarm' to find the real truth.

Now what I find fascinating, is that even though these dissenters from the growing mainstream opinion are basing their conclusions on scientific empirical evidence, not a single scientific body of national (US) or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, there are select individual's who disagree, there are businesses and even likely universities who disagree. But no international or national (US) scientific body, ie group of scientists who long ago got together or form a credible organisation, disagrees with the presence of AGW. That means that after looking at the same data that all of us are looking at, not a single group of true experts currently holds the same position as those who are disagreeing with AGW.

Out of these scientific bodies, there's a thorough list of the positions of over 50 very credible organisations concurring with presence of AGW, and 5 which have non committal statements, not a single one (now including the American Association of Petroleium Geologists) who reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

To give a a couple of brief position statements.

American Association for the Advancement of Science - The world's largest general scientific society.
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

American Chemical Society
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

American Physical Society
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

American Geophysical Union
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activities.

Australian Coral Reef Society
There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s atmosphere.
There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming

World Health Organisation Run by the UN.
There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

The list goes on. After reviewing the data, not a single one of the biggest and most reputable scientific organisations in the world disagree with AGW. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, (ie. lobbyists for the profit driven oil companies) no longer disagree. And their vested interest is absolutely massive.

So maybe are few individuals on PSB and people running various websites putting forward their on interpretations of the facts, have all cracked a secret that every single major scientific organisation has missed. Maybe all major scientific organisations with thousands of members didn't really "think for themselves", didn't really look at the data, got confused by that little hockey stick graph and were just manipulated by lazy greenies into ignoring the facts. Maybe, but its not very probable is it?

It seems much more probable to me that the global scientific community have conducted unbias, independent and very thorough and ongoing investigations into the incredibly complex systems surrounding AGW. That their findings, which is the very best that the scientific method currently offers, have total consensus in the theory that human activity are contributing towards global warming.

Now this may or may not turn out to be true. But that's what the empirical evidence and scientific interpretation say. But seriously, if you have proof that AGW isn't happening, and an argument strong enough to stand up to scientific rebuttal from people who really know what they are talking about, contact the oil companies, because they will pay you millions. Their own science lobbyist body no longer disagrees with it, they are dieing for more scientists who disagree.

[Xander]

From the opening post in this thread.

The thing that irks me about the discussion on climate change is that it is entrenched in policy, not science.

To me and many others, there seems to be consensus among the scientific community, as outlined in my above post. Therefore the next step logical is on discussing policy to deal with it.

The nature of climate change is scientific, not cultural or diplomatic, yet it is being discussed by people educated in economics and law. [/B]

Again, science says this is the reality, it passes that on to economists and lawyers who's job it is to bring about necessary change.

Sure, scientists are approached, but given that there is no clear consensus over what is driving/causing change or what we can reasonably achieve to minimise it (which is presumptuous in itself), it's easy to find a scientist who will say more or less what you want to hear so as to reaffirm whichever bill, tariff or tax you wish to introduce.

If my previous post is true, then there is scientific consensus on AGW, very strong consensus. The systems are complex and changing, and while they arn't fully understood yet, nor may they ever be, there is still strong general consensus in the direction of what is happening.

[Taylor]

I'm curious to know what happens to people now when they speak out against mainstream, culturaly engrained and accepted ideologies since Galileo.

I've seen somebody use the same data as a person demonstrating global warming to show a downward trend in temperatures. While that can happen, nothing can be taken for fact in my own reality.

[Taylor]

If my previous post is true, then there is scientific consensus on AGW, very strong consensus. The systems are complex and changing, and while they arn't fully understood yet, nor may they ever be, there is still strong general consensus in the direction of what is happening.

The real thrust of my issue with global warming is the peer pressure to follow on. Only stupid people would argue with it, everybody smart thinks one way.

The world was flat too, until it wasn't, then everyone smart was thinking the world was round.

[Xander]

The real thrust of my issue with global warming is the peer pressure to follow on. Only stupid people would argue with it, everybody smart thinks one way.

The world was flat too, until it wasn't, then everyone smart was thinking the world was round.

I can appreciate that, its definitely becoming a growing part of the global consciousness. It can all feel like peer pressure, because unless you are working in the field, (or dedicate a lot of time to it) it's difficult to do your own research, or even just look at data with enough understanding to really draw your own unique conclusions. So unless you specialise in something, there's this unspoken pressure to go along with it. I think this is often what people object to, the pressure, rather than the data, conclusions, or policy itself.

This exists in so many areas, in road safety, nuclear power a someone pointed out, with AIDS in Africa, in global financial issues etc etc. You can't learn in detail about all the issues in society while maintaining some sort of lift. There's also a saying, "if you stand for everything, you stand for nothing."
Rather the way I see it, its very possible for each of us to pick one specific issue to research, be involved in and really make a difference in.

You are right too, the world was deemed flat for many years, just like for many years it was deemed that the earth was so massive that humans could never affect it. Scientific consensus has been saying the world is no longer flat in regards to human impact for many years. Even Kyoto was adopted in 1997, which is 13 years ago! Australia and was one of the only countries which didn't adopt it, if there was any peer pressure back then Australia still made its own decision. Now during the last election, one of Rudd's main policies was in regards to ratifying Kyoto, and thats what Australia voted for. None of us have to support or even believe it, but since we as a nation voted for action on environmental issues, thats the direction that we are heading.

[gordonleslie]

Science is not a popularity contest - otherwise we could all just vote on ideas and there would be no need to do any acutal research.

Doing science research is a difficult task - when someone proposes a theory for peer review it is usually picked apart/ridiculed extensively before it goes mainstream.

If you are familar at all with the whole climagegate saga it can be seen that the science behind AGW is not 'normal'. This is because of the huge political stigma that is now behind it.

Imagine if you will a scientific paper on the meaning of life that is ONLY reviewed by muslims vs one only reviewed by athiests. The fact is that there is a lot of blind 'belief' behind global warming (just as there was religious belief in regards to the center of the universe when Galileo was alive or the whole 'god created man' when Dawin was around).

I would be called a AGW skeptic - i believe also that the climate is warming (and probably cooling too depending on your reference point) - i also believe that we are causing some of this change (a miniscule proportion in my opinion). However the degree at which we are causing the change is something i dont see eye to eye with when I read the IPCC reports.

[dr00]

article from the australian last weekend

FRANK FUREDI

20 February 2010

There’s a noble tradition of scientists scrutinising research to establish integrity, but the process has become corrupted

SUDDENLY the esoteric peer-review system has hit the headlines. The Lancet, a leading British medical journal, has acknowledged that it made a serious error in publishing a study that sought to link the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine to autism and bowel disease.

Earlier this month a group of leading stem-cell researchers wrote an open letter pointing out the systematic abuse of peer review by a small cabal of scientists, whom they accused of using their position to slow down the publication of the findings of their competitors.

And the scandal surrounding the leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and the dubious data published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exposes a worrying trend towards the corruption of the system of peer review.

Peer review is a system that subjects scientific and scholarly work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Ideally, it ensures that research is approved or published only when it meets the standards of scientific rigour and its findings are sound.

At its best, peer review guarantees it is disinterested science that informs public discussion and debate. Through peer review, the authority of science helps to clarify disputes and injects into public discussion the latest findings of research.

Peer reviewing depends on a community of experts who are competent and committed to the pursuit of an impartial review. It depends of the commitment and collaboration of scientists and scholars in a given field.

However, the individuals who constitute a community of experts are also scientists and scholars who are preoccupied with their own position and status. Often the colleagues they are refereeing are their competitors and sometimes even bitter rivals. The contradiction between working as a member of an expert community and personal interests can’t always be satisfactorily resolved.

Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, peer reviewing is rarely an entirely disinterested process and all too often it is not free from vested interests.

As many of my colleagues in academe know, peer reviewing is frequently conducted through a kind of mates’ club, between friends and acquaintances, and all too often the matter of who gets published and who gets rejected is determined by who you know and where you stand in a particular academic debate.

Nevertheless, peer reviewing is probably the most effective way of exercising quality control over the proposals and output of the scholarly and scientific communities.

However, peer reviewing cannot be immune to the preoccupations, agenda and interests of the individuals who carry out the refereeing. Even with the best will in the world academics and scientists can overlook errors and be blind to the importance of a new but maverick contribution. They are ordinary mortals who possess their fair share of prejudices and are often no less petty or self-centred than their fellow citizens.

The experience of the past month indicates there are at least three ways peer review can be undermined.

First, there is the genuine mistake. An example of this was the failure of The Lancet’s refereeing process to spot the flaws associated with the study associating the MMR vaccine with autism and bowel disease. Now that the journal has retracted this flawed study, questions need to be asked as to whether the imperative of gaining publicity for The Lancet was a factor in influencing its decision to rush into print.

Second, there is the damaging influence of nepotism and professional jealousy. Academics and researchers are all too conscious of the prestige and career opportunities that can be enhanced through getting their work published in an important academic journal. Sometimes reviewers regard the research they are refereeing as the work of their competitor and adopt the tactic of delaying or preventing its publication.

This is the accusation made by 14 stem-cell researchers in a letter to several journals in their field. The researchers claimed that the peer-review process was corrupted by reviewers who deliberately stalled and even stopped the publication of new results so they or their associates could publish the breakthrough first. They also blamed the journals for not doing enough to prevent this behaviour from happening.

The third, and in recent years the most disturbing, threat to the integrity of the peer-review system has been the growing influence of advocacy science. In numerous areas and most notably in climate science, research has become a cause that is politicised and moralised.

Consequently, in climate research, peer review is sometimes perceived as a moral project where decisions are influenced not simply by science but by a higher cause. The scandal surrounding Climategate is as much about the abuse of the peer-review system as it is about the rights and wrongs of the various claims made by advocacy researchers in and around the IPCC.

The usual problems associated with peer review have been exacerbated through the transformation of peer review into a public ritual of authorisation. Increasingly, peer review is used as a form of unquestioned and unquestionable authority for settling what are in fact political disputes.

Consequently, the findings of peer review are not simply represented as a statement about the quality of research or the status of a scientific finding but as the foundation for far-reaching policies that affect everything from the global economy to the lifestyle of the individual.

Increasingly peer review has been turned into a quasi-holy institution that signifies a claim is legitimate or sacred. From this perspective, voices that lack the authority of peer review are by definition illegitimate. Peer review provides a warrant to be heard. Those who speak without it deserve only our scorn.

You can almost visualise peer-review dogmatists waving their warrant and demanding that their opponent be silenced. George Monbiot, the British climate alarmist journalist, represents peer review as the equivalent of a holy scripture.

Boasting of his encounter with an opponent who challenged him to a debate on speed cameras, he wrote that “I accepted and floored him with a simple question”. And predictably the question was: “Has he published his analysis in a peer-reviewed journal?” In a world where opponents can be floored because they lack the authority provided by the ritual of peer review there is considerable incentive to manipulate the system.

Andrew Dessler, a climate-change researcher, also sought to floor his opponent, who apparently wrote a “denier op-ed” in The Wall Street Journal, by dismissing its value on the grounds that this newspaper is not peer reviewed.

Since “the only place” where this “denier” can write his views is in “non-peer-reviewed venues like conferences and press releases”, he is worthy only of censorious contempt.

Climate alarmists do not simply boast of their monopoly over peer-reviewed outlets, they also do their best to call into question peer-reviewed outlets that dare publish research that challenges their crusade.

When Cambridge University Press dared publish Bjorn Lomborg’s The Sceptical Environmentalist, it faced bitter criticism from campaigners who hinted that something had gone wrong with this publisher’s system of review.

Stephen Schneider, a professor in environmental studies, asked why “a publisher with so excellent a reputation in natural sciences (it even published the IPCC reports) publish a polemic under its imprimatur” and demanded to know if the press had “the book completely reviewed”? It appears that as far as Schneider is concerned it is simply unthinkable that a publication that questions the prevailing consensus could have been properly reviewed.

The zealous policing of peer-review by campaigners is directly encouraged by the modus operandi of the IPCC itself. As Reiner Grundman argued in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Politics, the IPCC “characterises outside critics as unscientific as they do not publish in peer-reviewed literature”.

With so much moral resources invested in the authority of peer review it is not surprising that some supporters of the IPCC consensus adopt an almost casual attitude towards the violation of academic protocols.

The leaked email shows how one UEA scientist, Keith Briffa, wrote to a colleague to ask for help for keeping a paper that he did not like out of an academic journal that he edits. US climate scientist Michael Mann proposes that a journal should be ostracised for daring to publish a paper criticising his work.

“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” he writes.

Phil Jones, the central figure in Climategate, promises to keep out two research papers from the IPCC report. “I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is,” he notes.

Sadly, there are far too many researchers for whom science has become an instrument for the realisation of a higher cause. As a result they are scientists in name but moralisers in practice.

The manipulative exploitation of peer review is underwritten by a culture where campaigners are permitted to have a cavalier attitude towards facts.

While the IPCC insists that its critics should be judged by the most rigorous standards of peer review, it has a more relaxed attitude towards its own publication. In recent weeks there has been a series of damaging revelations about how conclusions drawn by the IPCC’s 2007 report were based on speculation and anecdotes.

So claims made about disappearing mountain ice were cobbled together from information drawn from a student’s dissertation and an article published in a mountaineering magazine. Other claims were based on information based newsletters, press releases and reports produced by environmentalist advocacy groups.

It is not surprising that those involved in the corruption of peer review are also happy to use anecdotes and speculation as the moral equivalent of hard scientific data.

However, it is important to understand that these people fervently believe in their cause and are convinced that far from deceiving the public they uphold a higher truth.

As with the authors of the British government’s dodgy dossier on Iraq, they are convinced they are absolutely right. It is this sense of righteousness that allows them not to let the absence of a few facts stand in the way of promoting their arguments as hard intelligence or peer-reviewed science.

It was the moral conviction of former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that allowed him to respond to a question about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by stating that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. In a similar manner the absence of evidence does not deter climate alarmists from practising their art.

The philosophy of the Noble Lie permits its practitioners to stretch the truth in good conscience. Tragically, they can count on the authority enjoyed by climate science to avoid having to engage with the criticism of the public.

That is why even when the emperor is caught out without his peer review, the IPCC can carry on by blaming the young boy for his scepticism.

Frank Furedi is professor of sociology at the University of Kent.

[dr00]

Uncorrected Evidence 39

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)





The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia



The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

...

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?



1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.



3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:



· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.



4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.



5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.



6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.



7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

...

[azathoth]

Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale Watts Up With That?

I'm not sure you can just stick the instrumental record on the end like that.

In any case, most climate scientists agree that yes it has actually been pretty warm on this planet before. But there's some evidence that last time it got this warm human's were almost wiped out.

[gordonleslie]

I'm not sure you can just stick the instrumental record on the end like that.

In any case, most climate scientists agree that yes it has actually been pretty warm on this planet before. But there's some evidence that last time it got this warm human's were almost wiped out.

I know of no study that indicates that humans and worse off when it warms?? I am guessing if you believe that we are worse off when it warms you also believe we are better off when it cools?

For some laughs read this article from the BBC - i cant believe they made an article from that!
BBC News - Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn

On a more serious note: University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’

University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ - Times Online

[azathoth]

I know of no study that indicates that humans and worse off when it warms??

By some simple deduction you can figure out why increased global temperatures might be dangerous for humans. There are some of the disaster scenarios posed by the IPCC reports. Melting glaciers are a huge deal - obviously, rising sea levels will flood many inhabited areas.

Most plant life has a narrow band of temperature it can survive in. Increasing temperatures will affect the parts of the planet that can sustain our crops.

Many forms of plant life survive due to seasonal cycles of ice forming, then being watered by the run off as the ice melts. If that ice never gets a chance to form these areas will run dry.

Many of the areas we currently farm are suitable thanks to our current climate and millenia of plant growth. The areas uncovered by ice do not have the nutrient rich soil to maintain most of our crops and will take as many millenia to get it.

I am guessing if you believe that we are worse off when it warms you also believe we are better off when it cools?

No, we are worse off then the climate changes.

[Taylor]

I would float the idea that the reason homosapiens have been so successful is their ability to take the changes in their climate in their stride.

[gordonleslie]

The thing is the climate has always been changing so where is your reference point for "change"? is it the 1900's? is it in the middle of the mini ice age? is it the middle of the medieval warming period?

If you stacked up the pros and cons of both a cooling scenario and a warming scenario we as a species are better off in a warming trend than a cooling trend.

Global Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers. Global cooling does not. Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or during the last 2 decades. Whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that seem forgotten. Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years: "Our study (NASA) proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth" . Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that precipitation increases 6.5% per degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier. In the warm coastal farm lands near Guayaquil, Ecuador (near the equator) are many greenhouses, and in the cooler elevations, they are everywhere.

The IPCC only lists the negatives of warming and doesnt cover the whole topic (ie the positives of warming and the pros and cons of cooling).

You said yourself that the climate is changing - so therefore it is either getting cooler of warmer .... if i had to choose one of them it would be warming every time.

[dr00]

I would float the idea that the reason homosapiens have been so successful is their ability to take the changes in their climate in their stride.

not just humans, the case of the great barrier reef was pretty interesting. there were some scientists making catastrophic predictions about the reefs survival if temperatures rose. turns out the reef can adapt just fine.

[azathoth]

Global Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers.

Sure, up until a point. As I said above, if it gets too warm then the story is very different.

Global cooling does not.

What is this global cooling you speak of?

Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or during the last 2 decades.

No period in written history has been as warm as it has been now, and as mentioned earlier - last time it got as warm as this (pre-written language) it may have preceded a major "near extinction" event.

The last two decades of growth have little to do with climate, and everything to do with technology. Fertilizer being one of the big ones (without it we almost faced Malthusian's catastrophe) and modern medicine.

Whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal.

Again, it will grow faster when it is warmer up until a point. Follow your point to it's logical conclusion: If the temperature of the earth is 1000 degrees, then plants should grow 1000 times faster right?

Not quite: at a certain point temperature is inhibitive to growth. Take a look at my post about the Briffa controversy earlier in this thread.

Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that seem forgotten. Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years: "Our study (NASA) proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth" . Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that precipitation increases 6.5% per degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier. In the warm coastal farm lands near Guayaquil, Ecuador (near the equator) are many greenhouses, and in the cooler elevations, they are everywhere.

You said yourself that the climate is changing - so therefore it is either getting cooler of warmer .... if i had to choose one of them it would be warming every time.

You keep repeating this false dichotomy, there are far more choices than simply 'cooling' or 'warming'.

[gordonleslie]

Earth's Climatic History

Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.

The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 - 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 7x-1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 2006. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomolies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomolies became more common, and from 1980 to 2006 most of the anomolies were between 0.20 to 0.63 degrees Celsius higher than the normal period (1951-1980) average.

In the 1930s and 1950s, the central United States experience two periods of extreme drought. In the seventeen year period from 1990 to 2006, ten of the warmest years in the last 100 years and possibly since the Little Climatic Optimum have occurred. Proxy and instrumental data indicate that 2005 was the warmest year globally in 1200 years of Earth history. Many scientists believe the warmer temperatures of the 20th and 21st centuries are being caused by the human enhancement of the Earth's greenhouse effect.

I love it how scientists can CALMLY explain how the climate has changed (ie getting warmer and cooler) from the past 2 million years but then get hysterical over the last 100 years???

Here is an article from stanford university regarding why warming is more beneficial than cooling Global Warming

the real reason for growing scepticism? as time progresses the alarmist theories unravel as we can empirically measure prediction (theory) versus actual.

Here is a great example of James Hansen who is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to limit the impacts of climate change.



i am sure we will be doing the same thing with Al Gore's crazy hockey stick predications in 5 years time too.

[jules_1972]

Cant even predict tomorrows weather!!!

So who's to say that what they claim happened 200 years ago is correct?

[azathoth]

Here is an article from stanford university regarding why warming is more beneficial than cooling Global Warming

Again, false dichotomy. The options cannot be confined to simply cooling or warming.

the real reason for growing scepticism? as time progresses the alarmist theories unravel as we can empirically measure prediction (theory) versus actual.

Empirical measurements all appear to be backing up the science:

• CO2 has been confirmed as a greenhouse gase (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).
• Satellite observations confirm less heat escaping the earth due to CO2 (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007)
• Increased reflection of radiation back to the earth's surface has been observed - and confirmed as the result of CO2 and CH4 (Wang 2009, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006)
• Humans are the biggest producers of CO2, eclipsing volcanoes and all other natural phenomena (Ghosh 2003)

The real reasons for skepticism have nothing to do with empiricism, they have to do with ideology, the lack of readily observable affects of climate change, the poor conduct of several key scientists and the IPCC and the lack of good scientific education and understanding of the scientific process.

Here is a great example of James Hansen who is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to limit the impacts of climate change.



i am sure we will be doing the same thing with Al Gore's crazy hockey stick predications in 5 years time too.

What you've shown here is a 'forecast'. Guess what, forecasts can be wrong.

Al Gore's 'hockey stick' is not a forecast or prediction, it was a graph of existing data points. In any case you might be pleased to know it has been discredited. (Read up on the Mann et al. controversy)

[merctom]

Again, false dichotomy. The options cannot be confined to simply cooling or warming.

There are only 3 options - cooling, warming, constant.

[azathoth]

There are only 3 options - cooling, warming, constant.

I think you'll find that warming can happen at various degrees, that our ability to influence warming is difficult to confine to 'we are' or 'we are not', that there is far more nuance to 'we stop making CO2 and the earth cools down' or 'we keep producing CO2 and we enter catastrofuck'.