Skeptical Scientists Lambast UN Climate Meeting

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hilarity here (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)



Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

Related Links:

New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect'

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

# # #

[Don Corleone]

Interesting. So a guy who was tasked with charting the temperature rise for the New Zealand government says the science indicates man-made climate change isn't actually occurring and switches from pro-IPCC to anti-IPCC.

I would love to see the data that the global temperature has not risen for 5 years.

[Fragony]

This english guy invented a model that links the climate to solar activity, magnetic fields with solar flars you get it, he has an 80% succes rate at predicting the weather (so he says). At any rate, did you know that the exhaust fumes of the planes flying over those that care to Bali were 124% if the annual CO2 total of an average african country?

got it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

[Vladimir]

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

:2thumbsup:

It would be nice to see an international push to "grow out of" pollution by bettering technology. Virtual conferencing would have eliminated the above pollution. This reminds me of a UN conference on global hunger where the delegates feasted on lobster and caviar.

[Viking]

we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years


5 years is nothing in climatic sense. Lets see if these so called scientists come up with a more fitting model.



Ah, furthermore the graphs I've seen seems to conclude what I think I heard; we are currently in a cooling period:

https://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1452/temperature19002004uz8.jpg

This means we should not expect increase in temperature, but should experience higher temperatures than in the last cold period.

[Kommodus]

Not as much to respond to here as one would think, since the article didn't actually give any evidence that human-caused carbon emissions don't cause climate change. On the other hand,

A. FACT: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it has a tendency to trap heat inside the atmosphere.

B. FACT: There is a LOT more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be (Here's a link (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html) and another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm) with plenty more where that came from).

C. FACT: The recent sharp rise in carbon levels in the atmosphere coincides precisely with when we humans started pumping large amounts of it into the atmosphere.

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change. Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world. :no:

[Fragony]

5 years is nothing in climatic sense. Lets see if these so called scientists come up with a more fitting model.

I live in Amersfoort, the 'Keistad', 'kei' means 'stone', and we have stones, it is exactly here were the previous iceage in europe ended.

http://www.willem.it/images/amersfoortse-kei.jpg

Been one in Saudi Aurabia, and there is one on Antartica.

Edit hehe cool site

http://www.willem.it/images/Koppelpoort-Amersfoort.jpg

live 100 meter from there

[Vladimir]

5 years is nothing in climatic sense. Lets see if these so called scientists come up with a more fitting model.



Ah, furthermore the graphs I've seen seems to conclude what I think I heard; we are currently in a cooling period:

https://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1452/temperature19002004uz8.jpg

This means we should not expect increase in temperature, but should experience higher temperatures than in the last cold period.

Look at the sharp increase during WW II. Evil NAZIs. :jester:

[Ironside]

This english guy invented a model that links the climate to solar activity, magnetic fields with solar flars you get it, he has an 80% succes rate at predicting the weather (so he says). At any rate, did you know that the exhaust fumes of the planes flying over those that care to Bali were 124% if the annual CO2 total of an average african country?

got it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

How was the storm? Or do you get it by Christmas? :book:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not as much to respond to here as one would think, since the article didn't actually give any evidence that human-caused carbon emissions don't cause climate change. On the other hand,

A. FACT: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it has a tendency to trap heat inside the atmosphere.

B. FACT: There is a LOT more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be (Here's a link (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html) and another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm) with plenty more where that came from).

C. FACT: The recent sharp rise in carbon levels in the atmosphere coincides precisely with when we humans started pumping large amounts of it into the atmosphere.

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change. Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world. :no:Aye, this is the productive way of looking at it.

Inductive reasoning on this subject often only leads leads to obfuscation, pseudo-science, and scientific claims that lack solidity. To nonsense such as 'we have a cold winter, so there is no global warming / there are lots of hurricanes, so there is'. Obfuscation such as 'There have been ice ages before, the climate is constantly changing'.

Deductive reasoning is far more productive:
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a variable in the earth's climate.
Carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere by human activity. (i.e. burning fossil fuels)

Hence, all else being equal, human activity has an effect on the earth's climate.

As far as I know, neither premise is in much dispute. So I'd say that from this starting point human induced climatic change ought to be studied. I would like sceptics to show where they see any fault in this simple, chrystal-clear deduction. I don't think sceptics can, which relegates their effort to the level of rearguard skirmishes. And, unfortunately, sometimes also to a much needed watchdog function against some of the more bold claims from climatologist. Alas, climatology has become heavily politicised. What we need is more neutral scientific research into the climatological effects of human activity, and a little less alarmist, activism-driven studies.

[Marshal Murat]

Pope is my New Hero (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490)

In Reply:

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change.

Isn't the burden of proof always on the claimant? If someone is killed, and the prosecutor says 'It was a gun' you have to prove that a bullet killed them. If there are no

1. No bullet holes
2. No internal damage
3. No scars

Then are you going to go to the accused and ask 'Prove how you would kill the victim'? No, you go back and change the method of murder. The same here. If you tell me that 'Global Warming' is occurring because of human actions, then PROVE to me that it is happening.

Might I also point out that weather forecasting is a difficult business, and computer models do no constitute Fact

[HoreTore]

Of course, when one guy says something different than what 1 million others are saying, he is, of course, automatically correct.

Or are people perhaps only hearing what they want to hear?

[Vladimir]

Of course, when one guy says something different than what 1 million others are saying, he is, of course, automatically correct.




I understand your sarcasm and you know better than that. There's no reason in your statement.

[Myrddraal]

There is reason there, though it was clouded with sarcasm.

We will probably never reach absolute concensus amongst the scientific community about global warning, so waiting for everyone to agree is a rather pointless excersise.

Since these people know much better the science than I do, I base my oppinion on the majority oppinion of scientists who have looked into the matter. Frankly, the majority is incredibly strong. Why people choose to listen to the minority when they have no expertise themselves is beyond me.

[Marshal Murat]

Because sometimes the minority is correct.

[Big_John]

Because sometimes the minority is correct.do you always give the minority equal airtime? what about the flat earth society, do you still hold out the possibility that they are correct?

[Marshal Murat]

They have the right to believe that the Earth is flat. The claims they hold, however, have been disproved through rigorous scientific examination and observation.

If I support Intelligent Design as a theory of creation, and 3/4ths of my city believes in Intelligent Design, does majority therefore cancel out the theory of Evolution or Pastafarianism?

If 7/8ths of my city believes that there is a purple dragon, created by the Savior Jesus Christ, in the middle of the municipal park, does that make it correct? No.

1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

Majority rule doesn't mean the majority is correct.

[Papewaio]

Isn't the burden of proof always on the claimant? The same here. If you tell me that 'Global Warming' is occurring because of human actions, then PROVE to me that it is happening.

In this you are the claimant that CO2 does not warm up the atmosphere.
That humans are not releasing CO2.

Disprove those two at your leisure.

[Big_John]

They have the right to believe that the Earth is flat. The claims they hold, however, have been disproved through rigorous scientific examination and observation.exactly. and this is the approach we should take with global warming. for the vast majority to be so wrong in the interpretation of data would be amazing.

note: with empirical science we are dealing with interpretations of data, not flights of fancy, so ID and flat earth are not actually very good analogies.

[Marshal Murat]

Humans are releasing CO2, it's a given.

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that, and I doubt that anyone else can prove it. We don't know enough about our environment, the weather systems, chaos theory, etc. to accurately predict the influence of CO2 on the environment.


for the vast majority to be so wrong in the interpretation of data would be amazing.

Which is exactly why it should be proven, down pat, that human interference alone is affecting the environment, and how to deal with it.
Example:
Wolf Reintroduction (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/webprojects/f98_mabelson/WolfReintro95.htm)

To say that we have everything to do with global climate change is not a good position to take unless you can prove it.

[Myrddraal]

Majority rule doesn't mean the majority is correct.

This was not my point. My point was from the point of view of someone who does not know throught their own expertise.

I, as a person who has only a vague idea of the science behind global climate, put my trust in the majority of those who do, and have done the research.


CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that, and I doubt that anyone else can prove it.

So you won't accept something unless it's been proven absolutely? Overwhelming evidence and scientific oppinion is not enough? You prefer to listen to the minority.

EDIT: PS, I like your reference to Chaos theory :grin: If you're waiting for everything to be proven by Chaos theory, you might as well give up on proving that a lot of the observed world actually exists, therefore, it does not.
I'm only teasing you :laugh4: I know what you meant

[Big_John]

Humans are releasing CO2, it's a given.

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove thatyou've backed into the corner pape has left unpainted.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm sorry if being absolutely correct is a problem Myrdraal :laugh4:

[Papewaio]

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that, and I doubt that anyone else can prove it. We don't know enough about our environment, the weather systems, chaos theory, etc. to accurately predict the influence of CO2 on the environment.


CO2 works with Infrared like Sunscreen cream does against UV.

Sunscreen cream is transparent in the visual spectrum. You can see your skin beneath a layer of it. However against UV light it is opaque and doesn't let much UV through. The SPF rating you see on each bottle of sunscreen is the scientifically measurable ability of the cream to block UV.

The same process to measure sunscreen can be done on any em spectrum on any substance. So just like sunscreen you can find what CO2 blocks and at what wavelength. In fact this is so easy to do it is a first year lab experiment in Physics. This is basic absorption spectroscopy. In fact the same idea is used in Carbon Sensors... they emit an infrared beam and the absorption is measured telling the user that CO2 is present.

Spectroscopy is used quite a lot. Each element has its own spectoscopic fingerprint. Just by looking at the light emitted from a star we can determine what elements it is composed of.

So CO2 absorbing infrared light is bread and butter scientific fact.

[Xiahou]

So CO2 absorbing infrared light is bread and butter scientific fact.The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared life doesn't prove what if any overall warming effect it has on the climate. Lots of things absorb infrared light... just like sunscreen.... and butter.

[Big_John]

The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared life doesn't prove what if any overall warming effect it has on the climate. Lots of things absorb infrared light... just like sunscreen.... and butter.sunscreen and butter aren't atmospheric gasses.

[Xiahou]

sunscreen and butter aren't atmospheric gasses.
I know, but I thought they were acceptable analogies. :wink:


If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change. Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world.Try this:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
link (http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html)Really though, you don't need to have an alternative to be able to challenge the findings of a study. :shrug:

[Papewaio]

The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared life doesn't prove what if any overall warming effect it has on the climate. Lots of things absorb infrared light... just like sunscreen.... and butter.

CO2 in the atmosphere acts just like... a greenhouse. Disprove that greenhouses work by trapping in heat and you then have a factual basis to disprove CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

What you might want to debate what are the enviromental heatsinks or the wavelength of incoming vs outgoing light etc.

[Xiahou]

CO2 in the atmosphere acts just like... a greenhouse. Disprove that greenhouses work by trapping in heat and you then have a factual basis to disprove CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.
No, it works nothing like a greenhouse. Even those that support AGW know that the "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer. Real greenhouses work by preventing convective heat loss, whereas the atmospheric greenhouse effect is claimed to reduce radiative heat loss. :no:

edit:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Real_greenhouses)
Junkscience (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) provides (imo) a better explanation.

Does the Earth's atmosphere primarily behave like an actual greenhouse?

No. The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is incorrect.

[Myrddraal]

Ok Xiahou, but the misunderstand here is obviously about how a real greenhouse works, not how the greenhouse effect works.

You might also want to consider the idea that since CO2 is everywhere in our atmosphere, convective heat loss is impossible, and so the effect is very similar.

[Big_John]

Ok Xiahou, but the misunderstand here is obviously about how a real greenhouse works, not how the greenhouse effect works.

You might also want to consider the idea that since CO2 is everywhere in our atmosphere, convective heat loss is impossible, and so the effect is very similar.well, afaik, there is only an infinitessimal convective heat loss from the earth atmosphere into space. it's all radiative.

you could consider the earth a perfect greehouse in that sense. :sunny:

[Papewaio]

What I was getting at is that the end result is the same. It acts like...

You cannot disprove how a glass greenhouse traps in heat, nor will you be able to disprove that CO2 absorbs infrared.

What you can do is show that there might be larger heatsinks available... or that the absorption of infrared is a two way thing (sunlight vs infrared from the Earth).

[Xiahou]

You might also want to consider the idea that since CO2 is everywhere in our atmosphere, convective heat loss is impossible, and so the effect is very similar.

well, afaik, there is only an infinitessimal convective heat loss from the earth atmosphere into space. it's all radiative.

you could consider the earth a perfect greehouse in that sense. Wrong again.
Does the atmosphere behave like a greenhouse?

The name, greenhouse effect is unfortunate, for a real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does. The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is the suppression of convection (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface warm. Indeed, the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.

One sometimes hears the comparison between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (not in real greenhouses) and the interior of a parked car which has been left in the summer Sun with its windows rolled up. This comparison is as phony as is the comparison to real greenhouses. Again, keeping the windows closed merely suppresses convection.

Whether the topic is a real greenhouse or a car, one still hears the old saw that each stays warm because visible radiation (light) can pass through the windows, and infrared radiation cannot. Actually, it has been known for the better part of a century that this has very little bearing on the issue.


Or from JunkScience (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) again:
Theoretically, if the planet's surface cooled by radiation alone, then the greenhouse-induced surface temperature would be much warmer, about 350 K (77 °C). Atmospheric motion (convective towers carrying latent and sensible heat upwards and large scale circulation carrying it both upwards and polewards) circumvent much of the greenhouse effect and significantly increase the "escape" of energy to space, leaving Earth's surface more than 60 °C cooler than a static atmosphere would do.

[Big_John]

you're still hiding behind semantics to dodge pape's challenge. what a surprise.

[Xiahou]

you're still hiding behind semantics to dodge pape's challenge. what a surprise.
You and others claim that convective heat loss doesn't occur in the atmosphere. I show that not only does it, but it's fundamentally important to our climate. How you dismiss that as semantics is baffling.

I'm not sure at all what "pape's challenge" is. I think I've shown why 'the atmosphere behaves like a greenhouse' analogy fails and I've never argued that CO2 does not absorb certain amounts of infrared. As I've said, showing in a lab that it absorbs infrared does little to show what, if any, significance it has with our global climate.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've read up as much as I'm able on the subject and see no reason to think that the portion of the total CO2 that humans contribute to the atmosphere has any adverse effect on our climate.

[Big_John]

You and others claim that convective heat loss doesn't occur in the atmosphere. I show that not only does it, but it's fundamentally important to our climate. How you dismiss that as semantics is baffling.

I'm not sure at all what "pape's challenge". I think I've shown why 'the atmosphere behaves like a greenhouse' analogy fails and I've never argued that CO2 does not absorb certain amounts of infrared. As I've said, showing in a lab that it absorbs infrared does little to show what, if any, significance it has with our global climate.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've read up as much as I'm able on the subject and see no reason to think that the portion of the total CO2 that humans contribute to the atmosphere has any adverse effect on our climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
check section 3, "dissenting statements". glad you're holding up the banner.

[Xiahou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
check section 3, "dissenting statements". glad you're holding up the banner.
An appeal to popularity, huh? Now who's dodging?

[Big_John]

An appeal to popularity, huh? Now who's dodging?nice try, but it's a direct response to
I'm by no means an expert, but I've read up as much as I'm able on the subject and see no reason to think that the portion of the total CO2 that humans contribute to the atmosphere has any adverse effect on our climate.i'm sure you've read all you can on the subject. the vast majority of climate scientists have probably read something about it too. it's an appeal to knowledge and ability if anything.

[Xiahou]

'm sure you've read all you can on the subject. the vast majority of climate scientists have probably read something about it too. it's an appeal to knowledge and ability if anything.Well, I'll let you label it as whatever fallacy you want, just so long as we recognize that it is one. :wink:

Just for clarity, have we now abandoned any sort of scientific debate and moved on to the "which side do more scientists support" phase? There are certainly many respected climatologists, meteorologists, ect. who don't buy into the IPCC summary whole-heartedly (including IPCC contributors), but that sort of argument(and why it's irrelevant) has been covered in so many other threads...

[Big_John]

Well, I'll let you label it as whatever fallacy you want, just so long as we recognize that it is one. :wink:

Just for clarity, have we now abandoned any sort of scientific debate and moved on to the "which side do more scientists support" phase? There are certainly many respected climatologists, meteorologists, ect. who don't buy into the IPCC summary whole-heartedly (including IPCC contributors), but that sort of argument(and why it's irrelevant) has been covered in so many other threads...no, i won't pretend to be a climate scientist, though i do know a few. neither you nor i have the data/expertise needed to engage in anything beyond pointing to whichever camp we agree with, that's why we post links instead of our original research. it's just, i could put up a lot more links than you could, if i wanted to... all with tons of solid science behind them.

but i know better than to waste too much time with a someone more interested in supporting their particular political persuasion than actually understanding the issues.* i am curious though, did you have any interest in climate science before you read/heard some political pundit bring it up?



*you can add ad hominems to your check list of illusory, decried debate tactics, cha-ching! well, you could if that where part of any kind of argument of mine, which it's not.

[Xiahou]

no, i won't pretend to be a climate scientist, though i do know a few. neither you nor i have the data/expertise needed to engage in anything beyond pointing to whichever camp we agree with, that's why we post links instead of our original research. it's just, i could put up a lot more links than you could, if i wanted to... all with tons of solid science behind them.Tons of science, huh? Well, if there's tons of it- it pretty much has to be right. Obviously, the best way for science to move forward is by votes. Whichever position attracts more 'scientists' should be accepted, and any dissenters should shut the hell up. :yes:


but i know better than to waste too much time with a someone more interested in supporting their particular political persuasion than actually understanding the issues.* i am curious though, did you have any interest in climate science before you read/heard some political pundit bring it up?Actually, I used to assume, like so many others, that AGW was a given. The first time I heard a someone say they were skeptical I though, "Ok, now you're going beyond the pale- everyone knows it's real." I was literally taken aback somewhat. But, it prompted me to dig into the issue myself and eventually I started seeing that things didn't quiet add up to the hype.


*you can add ad hominems to your check list of illusory, decried debate tactics, cha-ching! well, you could if that where part of any kind of argument of mine, which it's not.Actually, it's a textbook case of an ad hominem- it's ok though, I don't mind. :wink: :
Person A makes claim X - I'm skeptical of global warming.
There is something objectionable about Person A - I'm "someone more interested in supporting their particular political persuasion than actually understanding the issues."
Therefore claim X is false - Therefore, I must be wrong. :yes:


What it really comes down to for me is that we're just being asked to buy into too much.
1)The global temperature is increasing.
2)This temperature increase is bad. Not just bad, but apocalyptic.
3)The increase is due almost completely to CO2.
4)Furthermore, it's not just CO2, but it's whatever portion of man-made CO2 that's causing all the trouble.
5)Somehow, but curbing our CO2 emissions by some small percentage of our current levels (which would still do untold damage to our economies) will solve all of this.

Most real scientists, on either side of the debate, would tell you that the dangers of global warming are being vastly over-hyped by Gore and his ilk in the media. Even if we are the primary cause of global warming, a small cut in CO2 isn't going to be enough to reverse it. Instead of crippling our economies in what would most likely be a futile attempt to reverse AGW, we'd be better served by allowing the 3rd world countries to develop resources to mitigate whatever effects there are.

[Xiahou]

During an unrelated search, I stumbled across the "Speak Out" pages for some PennState meteorologists- Paul Knight and Fred Gadomski.

Knight, among other things, is the Pennsylvania State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists. Here's his take:
On more than a few occasions I have been asked whether or not I believe that global warming induced by humans is taking place. My answer is simple, I don't know. But that does not mean I don't have some opinion about the matter. There are several points that I like to mention that may clarify why I'm not sure.

First, there are those who want to connect summer heat waves, winter warm spells and even a bunch of storms to be indicators of global warming. To these concocters, I say nonsense.

I think they insult the diligent researchers who are trying to come up with some answers about global temperature trends. There is no more likely connection between last summer's hurricanes and global warming then there is between your aging and getting a cold. Global warming is much more like aging, it is gradual, subtle and almost indistinguishable. A cold, like a storm, is a brief episode of inclement conditions....the two are not related.

Second, we have a problem determining how much and where the warming is occurring. There's no doubt that parts of the globe have become noticeably warmer during the last two decades. However, the warming is not uniform and nagging issues such as the solar cycle, urbanization and instrument errors cast doubt on the degree of warming over the land masses, which is to say nothing about the oceans.

My third point is the oceans which cover 70% of the planet and are only recently being carefully monitored. There is so much that we don't yet know about the capacity of the oceans to absorb the greenhouse gases and we are just beginning to appreciate the complexity of ocean circulations which include surface and deep currents. Since the water on this planet constitutes at least 70% of the answer, I think we need to know more before we can hang our hats on a forecast.

Finally, the forecasts themselves are rather suspect. I think it is marvelous how far we have come in using computers to simulate weather conditions, but we are clearly in the infancy of using computers to make climate predictions. These models are still being refined, they do not accurately account for very important feedback mechanisms within the atmosphere, such as the role of clouds. Much more work needs to done and those researchers need continued support, but not under the pressure of making forecasts.

In spite of these issues, I firmly believe that we must be excellent stewards of the resources that we have been blessed with. Our uncertainties over global temperature trends should not be taken as a license to waste or a cause for carelessness with our environment.

So I hope you can better understand why when someone asks me, do you believe that human induced global warming is taking place, I answer that I don't know, because it is the only honest response I can give.

- Paul Knight
http://www.ems.psu.edu/WeatherWorld/people/soundoff/knight/soundoff.htmlSounds very reasonable compared to all the hysteria that's out there.

Fred Gadomski's a meteorology professor at PSU and a senior forecaster for the NYT:
It was not long ago that there was a centennial and millennial celebration...and this is a natural time to take stock and look back and also to look ahead. So, naturally I'm thinking about the weather.

One of the big stories of the latter half of 1900's was called global change...ozone holes, global warming, acid rain, and a variety of other environmental transformations. The undertones of most of the media coverage was that human beings were contributing to an inexorable degradation of the earth-atmosphere system...indeed that human begins are the dominant force in shaping the climate and the world...or as the famous line says, "we have met the enemy and it is us."

Well here are some facts concerning one of the issues. In the U.S., 1998 and 1999 were the two warmest years since records began in 1895. But, the century of the 1900's as a whole was not one of steady warming. The first 40 years were a time of warming, the middle years showed a cooling trend while the last 25 years showed sharp warming trend. But, it is also true that the coldest winter across the nation was relatively recent, 1979. The hottest summer was way back in 1931. Some sections of the US, notably parts of the southeast are a bit cooler than they were near the start of the century. Indeed, the road to the hot news of the late 90's has been a bumpy one... and we aren't close to understanding what caused all the bumps.

So as I look ahead, there is one prediction of which I'm sure. In the next 100 years, the weather and climate will produce situations that we have not seen before, heat and chill, drought and floods, blizzards and hurricanes. You see... the real story is that the weather and climate is variable and wonderful and will never cease to amaze and challenge our senses...and while the media may disagree, I think that's good news.

- Fred Gadomski
link (http://www.ems.psu.edu/WeatherWorld/people/soundoff/gadomski/soundoff.html)
Again, he's much more level-headed about the issue than many.

Edit:
You can also apparently add the pope to the list of global warming skeptics...:beam:
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490)

[AntiochusIII]

You can also apparently add the pope to the list of global warming skeptics...:beam:
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490)I respect Catholic intellectualism, but the Pope doesn't count. ~;)

[Big_John]

it's a textbook case of an ad hominemno, it would have been had it been part of an arguement, which it was not. i guess you'll just ignore that again... so go ahead and tally it up anyway. the score is all that matters in the end, after all.

[JR-]

Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world. :no:
roflmao

you would appear to be a perfect example of the 'consensus' group think, no? :laugh4:

I have a lot of time for the sceptics, certainly enough that i consider them REAL scientists with a view that is worth exploring before we embark on global bureaucratic plans that will divert human endeavor from reducing poverty.

[Viking]

These so called "clima sceptics" are often showing off pseudo science, aka the goal is not to find out the truth, but rather how to debunk man made global warming. I cannot help to get this feeling when they always speak of other reports showing this and that, how the man made global warming is a hoax; but where the heck is the science they talk about? Nowhere really, they have an agenda, and their motive is not the truth.

The global warming could be barely related at all to the increased CO2 levels in the atmopsphere; but until I see proper science saying so, I find no reason to believe in it. In fact, when the vast majority of respected institutions says the majority of the temperature increase is man made, I believe the opposite.

[Xiahou]

Here's some more food for thought that I came across today:
Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html)
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm)

Edit: I think this also dovetails nicely with the first article I've linked:
Extra Sunshine Blamed for Part of Arctic Meltdown (http://www.livescience.com/environment/071212-arctic-clouds.html)
A reduction in clouds was likely a culprit in this summer’s record Arctic meltdown which temporarily opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, scientists announced this week.

Regardless of the fact that we still don't know what effect on climate the sun has and that global warming computer models can't even accurately predict current conditions, they still insist that we know without any doubt that man-made CO2 is the cause of all the warming. :dizzy2:

Here's some more zaniness from Bali:
UN eyes global warming pact by 2009 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sc/bali_climate_conference)
European and U.S. envoys dueled into the final hours of the two-week meeting over the EU's proposal that the Bali mandate suggest an ambitious goal for cutting the emissions of industrial nations_ by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.What?!? :inquisitive:
Overlooking the fact that such cuts in 12yrs or less are completely unattainable- just imagine the economic devastation of such cuts if nations of the world actually had the political fortitude to implement them. No way will 12yrs of technological advance be able to put anything more than a dent in that.

Fortunately, that US "negotiated" any specific commitments out of the current agreement. Seriously, other developed nations should be thanking us for sabotaging these suicide pacts. On the other hand, I think the UN people are well aware that targets like that are unattainable and would eagerly look forward to the fines that the organization could collect when governments inevitably fail to meet them. :yes:

[Whacker]

Sorry, I'm with Xiahou and the other skeptics here. 1 million hippies screaming something doesn't make it a fact, and this so called "majority of scientists" (lol) tripe gave me a good chuckle. I've seen fair and solid arguments on both sides of the coin.

My opinion at this point, is that:

1. I think human impact on the climate is real, but highly negligible, and it's being blown way, way, way, way, way, way, way out of proportion. It's rather arrogant of humanity to think that we can affect the earth in such a gross manner in our what, 100-200 years of being industrialized? Second, the thing that I can't get past is how absolutely little data we are going on over an extremely short spanse of time. Folks, even 50 years of scientific data that is reasonably accurate is nothing. This planet has been around for 4.5 billion years and has undergone some extreme changes, and had far more catastrophic events happen to it (thera, meteor impacts) than us pitiful humans. 50 years isn't even a speck of a fart in this planet's lifetime. If we survive another thousand years or so and collect data all that time, maybe we'll get a better picture. For now... meh.

That said;

2. I think it is a WONDERFUL idea to conserve, recycle, and reduce our emissions to help preserve the environment and nature. Humans do have a bad tendency to despoil things environmentally and aesthetically we get our grubby hands on and ruin what mother nature put together. Further, I think there's too much focus in certain areas, and way way way too little focus on others. For example, your average brand new (well working) 2 cycle weed eater will blow out more pollutants over 1/2 hour of operation than your average modern 4 cyl compact car (like a Civic) over one WEEK of "average" driving. * I think vehicle emissions requirements are excellent, but people can and do drive old cars that pollute more. Focusing heavily on fossil fuel powerplants is a great idea as well, in fact there are some wonderful ideas for not only reducing pollutant output but converting the pollutants to useful materials, like baking soda of all things. There are dozens of other things, like household items, that put out more pollutants that we should start to focus on and perhaps ease up on others. Even indirect methods, such as improving the US mass transportation situation would go a long way. Don't get me started on China's "It's not our problem" BS.

Anyway, that's my rant. Color me skeptical but in general, I tend to agree regarding conservation.

* Sorry, I read this a few years ago in an article, don't remember where or when exactly, so no citation.

[Husar]

Sorry but I'm somewhere in the middle. ~D

I can prove that global warming is happening by pointing at our snowless christmas years of the last....maybe decade, maybe a bit less.
I'm repeating myself but in my childhood I used to play in rather thick snow every winter but these winters are gone. :no:

Then again whether we humans are responsible for that or not I cannot really tell, I'm not going to read a few newspapers, then call myself a weather expert and explain either side why it is or is not so. Due to that I don't give much of a rat's head about what most people here say as, and that's where some here are right, not even scientists know all about the weather. It all sounds so simple and easy when reading an article but then I doubt anyone would get a job at a weather station by pointing out "I've read an article about how the weather works", umm yeah, and I learned how a nuclear power plant works in school, would you trust me with the one in your neighborhood? :sweatdrop:

Generally I think reducing our emissions etc is a good idea, not just because of global warming but also because they kill trees and humans, cause asthma etc. pp. Returning to the stone age to please some green nutjobs however is not the way it should be done IMO, if they really want that they can go ahead and do that themselves for a year, maybe they can convince me. :dizzy2:

[Viking]

Edit: I think this also dovetails nicely with the first article I've linked:
Extra Sunshine Blamed for Part of Arctic Meltdown (http://www.livescience.com/environment/071212-arctic-clouds.html)

The whole point of the article was really this:


As Arctic sea ice thins, its extent is more sensitive to year-to-year variability in weather and cloud patterns," Kay said. "Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun’s energy to melt the vulnerably thin sea ice and heat the ocean surface."


For the rest we can just say: time will show.

[HoreTore]

No ice on the north pole means that we can drill there too, doesn't it, Viking?

No reason to worry about climate change when you've got money... We'll die in a few years anyway, and then it'll be none of our concern.

[Viking]

No ice on the north pole means that we can drill there too, doesn't it, Viking?

No reason to worry about climate change when you've got money... We'll die in a few years anyway, and then it'll be none of our concern.


I can't help but get the feeling that the sarcasm of your post was aimed at me for some reason. :inquisitive:

What we need is windmills everywhere, obviously; too bad they kill off all the eagles. :laugh4:
Now seriously, changing to green energy sources will not be an estethic move..

[Xiahou]

2. I think it is a WONDERFUL idea to conserve, recycle, and reduce our emissions to help preserve the environment and nature. Humans do have a bad tendency to despoil things environmentally and aesthetically we get our grubby hands on and ruin what mother nature put together. Further, I think there's too much focus in certain areas, and way way way too little focus on others. For example, your average brand new (well working) 2 cycle weed eater will blow out more pollutants over 1/2 hour of operation than your average modern 4 cyl compact car (like a Civic) over one WEEK of "average" driving. * I think vehicle emissions requirements are excellent, but people can and do drive old cars that pollute more. Focusing heavily on fossil fuel powerplants is a great idea as well, in fact there are some wonderful ideas for not only reducing pollutant output but converting the pollutants to useful materials, like baking soda of all things. There are dozens of other things, like household items, that put out more pollutants that we should start to focus on and perhaps ease up on others. Even indirect methods, such as improving the US mass transportation situation would go a long way. Don't get me started on China's "It's not our problem" BS.You won't find many who are pro-pollution. The thing is there are many more pollutants besides CO2 that do much more tangible harm. We're throwing billions and billions of dollars at an unclear CO2 problem and talking about turning it into trillions. Global warming is certainly worth studying, but there are other serious environmental issues out there as well that are probably being all but ignored due to global warming hysteria.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You won't find many who are pro-pollution. The thing is there are many more pollutants besides CO2 that do much more tangible harm. We're throwing billions and billions of dollars at an unclear CO2 problem and talking about turning it into trillions. Global warming is certainly worth studying, but there are other serious environmental issues out there as well that are probably being all but ignored due to global warming hysteria.

I agree.

Added to which, there are some existing technologies that could moderate the impact of CO2 which have been shuffled into abeyance by the environmental lobby for many years - such as thorium based nuclear power.

Whatever, Kyoto and now Bali have shown that control measures as proposed will never work. It's over. Either the nay-sayers are right and we will see that by 2050 there is virtually no impact from increased CO2 levels; or when we exceed the 2 degree range it will lead to an incredibly hostile feedback loop for our planet and Gaia will start to die. To avoid that experiment, carbon emissions would have to be cut by 90% or more right now. Not going to happen, so our children will find out one way or another.

There is certainly no point in trying any more. To argue now for restrictions on carbon emissions is simply a waste of breath. The die has been cast.

[BigTex]

All this fear about global warming. Personally I see it as a good thing. The beach will be closer, the climate warmer, and more rain. You know what looks good in warm weather with rain, bikini's. Global warming is a good thing, honestly who likes the cold?

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go fire up my personal coal powered incinerator and burn some plastic and flourescent light bulbs and positively impact my climatic preference.

[HoreTore]

I can't help but get the feeling that the sarcasm of your post was aimed at me for some reason. :inquisitive:

Nah, only because you're a fellow norwegian and profiteer of higher emissions... :beam:

Imagine oil being dropped, we'd be bankrupt in a week! It's clearly in our interest to wreck the enviroment as much as possible, when the consequences arrives we'll be dead anyway.


What we need is windmills everywhere, obviously; too bad they kill off all the eagles. :laugh4:
Now seriously, changing to green energy sources will not be an estethic move..

Bah. You and I both know that there are large regions of Norway(like everything outside Oslo, or at least stor-oslo) neither we nor anyone else cares about. Perfect spots for whatever you want to make energy from.


Added to which, there are some existing technologies that could moderate the impact of CO2 which have been shuffled into abeyance by the environmental lobby for many years - such as thorium based nuclear power.

I'd rather be warm and wet than green and luminous.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'd rather be warm and wet than green and luminous.

That may well be because you haven't studied the options in sufficient depth. Your former case is a great deal more unpleasant than warm and wet.

It's a great opportunity to do some field research in France... :yes:

[JR-]

the money might better be spent trying to find a way for china to stop poisoning itself and the rest of the world.

not having one in ten families affected by birth defects could be a good thing perhaps:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKPEK155250._CH_.242020071029

[Xiahou]

That may well be because you haven't studied the options in sufficient depth. Your former case is a great deal more unpleasant than warm and wet.

It's a great opportunity to do some field research in France... :yes:
The biggest problem with nuclear power is NIMBY (Not In My BackYard). Even people who know that nuclear power is a good choice don't want a reactor in their town. :shrug:

[Viking]

Bah. You and I both know that there are large regions of Norway(like everything outside Oslo, or at least stor-oslo) neither we nor anyone else cares about. Perfect spots for whatever you want to make energy from..

We should rather place them in Oslo, since this city is so ugly already that a few windmills will not really make any difference. :whip:

No havørner (eagles) there either :beam:

[HoreTore]

We should rather place them in Oslo, since this city is so ugly already that a few windmills will not really make any difference. :whip:

Bah. At least we have civilization and a proper way of speaking, unlike you unwashed savages in the wilderness.

[ShaiHulud]

Aye, this is the productive way of looking at it.

Inductive reasoning on this subject often only leads leads to obfuscation, pseudo-science, and scientific claims that lack solidity. To nonsense such as 'we have a cold winter, so there is no global warming / there are lots of hurricanes, so there is'. Obfuscation such as 'There have been ice ages before, the climate is constantly changing'.

Deductive reasoning is far more productive:
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a variable in the earth's climate.
Carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere by human activity. (i.e. burning fossil fuels)

Hence, all else being equal, human activity has an effect on the earth's climate.

As far as I know, neither premise is in much dispute. So I'd say that from this starting point human induced climatic change ought to be studied. I would like sceptics to show where they see any fault in this simple, chrystal-clear deduction. I don't think sceptics can, which relegates their effort to the level of rearguard skirmishes. And, unfortunately, sometimes also to a much needed watchdog function against some of the more bold claims from climatologist. Alas, climatology has become heavily politicised. What we need is more neutral scientific research into the climatological effects of human activity, and a little less alarmist, activism-driven studies.

Excellent post! Those advocates trying to make skeptics seem to be 'Flat Earther's' are beggaring their cause with their extravagant claims which fall flat in the face of evidence.

Obviously, man has an effect on the environment. Just as obviously, dinosaurs had an effect on their environment for 15 billion years. The question becomes whether such effects can be interpreted as defining as opposed to merely incidental.

[Papewaio]

1. I think human impact on the climate is real, but highly negligible, and it's being blown way, way, way, way, way, way, way out of proportion. It's rather arrogant of humanity to think that we can affect the earth in such a gross manner in our what, 100-200 years of being industrialized? Second, the thing that I can't get past is how absolutely little data we are going on over an extremely short spanse of time. Folks, even 50 years of scientific data that is reasonably accurate is nothing. This planet has been around for 4.5 billion years and has undergone some extreme changes, and had far more catastrophic events happen to it (thera, meteor impacts) than us pitiful humans. 50 years isn't even a speck of a fart in this planet's lifetime. If we survive another thousand years or so and collect data all that time, maybe we'll get a better picture. For now... meh.


Wonderfully incorrect.

a) We have more then 50 years of climate data (I assume that you have read primary school text books that mention an ice age that predates 50 years by more then 2 orders of magnitude, not to mention the mini-me ice age in the middle ages).

b) If you compare the amount of flora and fauna that die in a mass extinction event then we (humans) have successfully wiped out as much as one in the amount of variety. Also we have done it in a shorter time period then a lot of those events.

c) I'm pretty sure most people understand the damage we have done with lead fueled cars. The lead reached the upper atmosphere and got fairly evenly distributed around the world. With the different lead isotopes one can distinguish say the US contribution to the European one in ice core samples.

d) Also most people understand the damage done to the Ozone.

e) Depleted fisheries.

f) Depleted forestries. North Africa used to have ship yards... try and find the wood to make the ships now. That was antiquity... we are far more 'efficient' at chopping down trees now.

g) Deserts... we have made a few of our own.

So to say that we aren't affecting the environment takes a level of what?

[JR-]

the PT extinction event killed about 95 percent of species and 85 percent of biomass, have we really been that bad?