Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

Profits are made off of creating CO2: factories and jets and all sorts of things.

People who want to continue raking in profits will fight any move to limit their income.

If there's a completely unstoppable non-man-made reason for the climate change that DOES threaten life on earth, I think THAT would be covered up a lot more so world-wide panic over the end of everything wouldn't kick in. Hope may spring eternal, but drying up the spring is bad if your job is telling people what to do...

 

Sure is!

December 7th, 2009…a day that will live in hypocrisy Watts Up With That?

 

"We can start with the first 25." Nope. You don't get to post something that's clearly mostly crap, or even occasionally larded with crap, and then, when I've demonstrated that at least some of the items are crap, go on to talk about the rest, and just sluff off the fact that at least some of the items, are, in fact, crap.

My rule is: If a substantial portion of the article is crap, then it's out of the running for being part of an intelligent discussion. I'm not wasting any more time on it.

Regarding the role of changes in solar output, I stand by my statement. Here's a graph from NASA GISS. You can find a similar table in the last IPCC report. This is their estimate of climate forcings since the start of the industrial revolution.

Note the big bar on the left -- greenhouse gases, and the small bar off to the right -- solar output.



The IPCC version is on page 4 of this document, and appears similar:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

So, whom should I trust? The finest minds in the US regarding climate change and the summary of the foremost world researchers on climate change, both of which appear to agree that changes in solar output have been a relatively minor factor. Or, should I trust this newspaper's assertion without citation as to source, plus your statement that most of what you've read says that most of the warming has been due to the sun.

Individual readers will have to make up their own minds, but I'll stick with NASA on this one.

 

Even given the "newspapers" calibre for hyperbole, even the headline is misleading. "100 reasons climate change is "natural"".

Many of the 100 things listed are the RESULT of climate change not the cause. A few examples come to mind quickly:

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution"

On a side note to RP,

You can't in one set of threads tell me I shouldn't shoot the messenger if I don't like the message, and yet you have done that several times in other threads. (is global warming unstoppable?)

" Edit: Oops, I forgot the biggest misinformation spreader in this entire thing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece"

But what do I know, I'm only an alarmist!
__________________

 

Weird. I didn't see you debunk any of the points. You only made a significant point about one of them, and that depends upon which way you read the question (time vs percentage.) Since when is 1 out of 100 a significant portion? The rest of the points you addressed were just quotes from people. You demonstrated nothing.

Your lack of scientific reasoning is unbelievable.

These estimates are *current*. They would be different at the start of the industrial revolution because we had only then started producing GHGs. (Not to mention those "fingerprints" were obtained from a computer model.)

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/asr2004.pdf
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf

 

I believe that RadioPrius has a different standard: "Even if I was the biggest liar in the world, if I state a fact, it's still a fact."

(From Post # 8 in case anyone thinks I would make this stuff up!)

What do I know, I'm only an alarmist!

 

I love that the cognitive process of using an analogy is beyond you.

 

Oh my, sounds like a repeat on a larger scale of the first visit of the heads of the Big 3 going to Washington with hats in hand.

 

This argument is a nonstarter for most. You do know that they believe that the world is around 5000 years, carbon dating be damned.

 

At the risk of personal insult,, That's the pot calling the kettle black!

I recall a time when I suggested (with the caveat that it was metaphor AND I said that I was not advocating violence!) that we needed to "slap someone upside the head".

You popped back about how I was suggesting violence. I guess you know what analogy is, but not metaphor.

But what do I know, I'm only an alarmist!

 

Yes, it is natural, but we've never had 7 billion humans before with accelerating concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere. The "Precautionary Principle" mandates that we pay attention and prepare accordingly.

 

There are many summaries of evidence, knowledge, projections, limitations etc. available on the web. Aside from the (obvious) wikipedia pages, here are a few more links:

US National Assessment of Climate Change. Overview: Summary. Climate Change and Our Nation
BBC News | In Depth | Climate Change
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
AAAS - Global Climate-Change Resources
United States Global Change Research Program
Climate Change at the National Academies
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Not sure I could point to a single best summary of the state of our knowldege; it is expanding quite rapidly. But the cogent objections in the "100 reasons why" list have already been dealt with.

I don't really fault fair-minded sceptics for not doing the intellectual work required to grasp such a complex issue. The public education system does not generally teach the skills, and the media generally focuses on controversies not understanding. I'll help where I can though, time permitting. It's all quite fascinating, really.

edit: added one to the list above. Not a neutral source (some might say), but it provides some useful links to the literature

 

It's a strawman argument. Nobody has argued that man is the only source of climate change. What is different is that we now have the capability of altering it drastically and unintentionally.

You can't read past #1 in the link before guffawing and skipping the other 99 as worthless drivel.

 

As I have pointed out in several places, there is a difference between an open minded skeptic and a denier. Deniers come to their position due to an ideological position that is rooted largely in anti-tax right leaning politics. In addition to being an organized well funded disinformation campaign, it is aided and abetted by talk radio, and right wing TV like
Fox.

Most of the "arguments" against global warming are mere echos of talking points from talk radio/tv. It's expressed purpose to at best plant a seed of doubt where there is none, and at worst, derail the process so that the status quo remains. The other ulterior motive (at least of the far right) is to ensure that President Obama "fails" what ever that means. It is not a surprise when the guy from SC (whose name escapes me at this point) wants Obama to "fail" The surprise is that he was so flat footed to say so out front.

So legitimate skepticism is fine. The folks here who are flooding these thread are not skeptics however, in spite of any protests tot he contrary. They are deniests and they have revealed themselves to no be really interested in the truth, but more interested in preserving the status quo to preserve their own status quo.

 

So he's now openly claiming to be the "biggest liar in the world?"

I'm just applying the same reading standard that he applied to the hacked emails.

 

Oh please. I love that you act like skeptics aren't doing the intellectual work. Just look at the three main global warming threads. You will clearly see the only intellectual and well versed people are the skeptics.

If you would like to see Icarus get slaughtered, because he doesn't even know the most basic thing about AGW, check out this thread.

Additionally, we see a "drees" claiming earth would never have warmed without human intervention, that it would have remained at the 1850 temperatures. He was summarily defeated in this post, and this post, and then completely wiped the floor with him in this post.

(And below this is the "Thanks" section from that post. You can clearly see Alric, Fibb222, icarus, and Shawn Clark all applauding drees for his post. This shows that they too did not even know the basics of AGW, thinking that the earth would have remained on a cooling trend if humans had not started producing CO2/GHGs.)



And you guys laugh at the denialists? This conclusively demonstrates that the only people who actually know about AGW here are the denialists.

And yet you don't know the truth.

As we can all see starting with this post, it is *you* that doesn't know the truth.

I love that the cognitive process of an analogy is beyond you as well.

I think the biggest sign that you guys are defeated is that you are attacking me in every way possible, but you don't attack my arguments about AGW.

 

BINGO! I'm very much a skeptic and expect a logical explanation that I can follow before I erase that skepticism. I routinely tear medical studies to shreds with a quick scan of their particulars...and am frequently proven correct in my assessment by follow up studies that reverse the findings. (Too bad RP doesn't apply his claimed skepticism to a field applicable to him.)

I started with a skeptical eye on global warming many years ago. Then I did a few calcs and checks. I listened as various fallback positions (source of CO2, CO2 uptake, etc.) all proved to be untenable over subsequent years. These are things I wanted to go the other way. Eventually it became apparent that CO2 is/was/will be a problem that we must address.

What the denialists here are doing is not casting a skeptical eye. If it was they would apply that skepticism with the same vigor to many/most/all of the denial arguments. (Which would effectively remove almost all, if not all of the same denial arguments they profess.) Their skepticism of the denial arguments is completely lacking/AWOL/non-existent. That lack of skepticism illustrates that they are in denial. Denial comes when one knows the most reasonable answer, but refuses to accept it. It isn't rational, and it is not the problem of those who have already accepted that the concern is real. No, the problem is with the individual in denial.

 

Yeah, you sound like a real shrewd thinker.

 

You might be a bit biased there... You seem to be quite proud that you have "defeated" the others. Again - congratulations!

You still don't get it, and I've tried explaining myself 3 times and each time you've completely missed the point. Please, take the blinders off!

1. You posted this graph which supposedly uses GIS data as the source and according to you, shows a decline in temperatures between 1934-1980.



2. I replied multiple times with the official GIS charts, which clearly show the opposite trends (like this one):



Yet, apparently, the official GIS chart is incorrect and the woodfortrees.org self-generated chart is correct.

Apparently we get tired of posting the same thing time, and time, and time, and time again. You have more endurance.

Again - congratulations on your win. For one, I hope you are correct and we can keep on doing the same thing with no ill effects.

BTW - I'm surprised no-one picked up on my earlier post on another thread regarding ocean acidification as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

At the rate we are going, we will be seeing some drastic changes in our oceans very soon unless we get a handle on rising CO2 levels.