Man Based Global Warming....

Oh, it's changing alright. No one has every argued that point. The earth has ice ages, has relative warm periods, has relative temperate periods. Even AGW believers don't deny that fact.

AGW is the theory that man and his activities are largely responsible for a gradual warming of the earth - to the point that in a very short time (relative to the age of the earth and the existence of humans) catastrophic events will occur ensuring the premature deaths and relocation of billions of its human inhabitants.

Most importantly, the AGW believers also firmly believe that man, and man himself, can through legislation, laws, and such reverse the course of AGW. AGW scientists have even stated we only have four years to correct AGW (gee, what a coincidence, the term of our new president is four years... well I guess President Obama has his work cut out for himself).

I, and many other prominent scientists and climatologists, simply believe man is not the cause for climate change, whether it be warming or cooling.

Rick
#4 2006

 

OK, are you saying the planet is warming or cooling?? Here I have Alric consistently showing me graphs and interpretations showing a RISE in global temperatures. It would seem the term "Global Warming" would be more accurate than "Climate Change" which could imply either warming or cooling (all as result of man of course).

When the idea came up that the earth was warming, it was referred by all who believed in AGW as "Global Warming". Only when (the last three years or so) when winters have become brutal, snow packs returned and then some to nearly all ski resorts worldwide, hurricanes have been few and weak, and even the public was wondering "where is all this so called Global Warming", was the term "Global Warming" quietly changed to "Climate Change".

So is it AGW or ACC???

We had snow 30 years earlier and no one mentioned man as causing it. Yet CO2 had been and was pouring into the atmosphere at voluminous rates from inefficient coal and oil electrical plants and gas hog automobiles for decades. It just happened to snow, as it does every thirty or forty years. So we got a day off from school. Big deal. Climatic patterns will definitely change as it has billions of years before humans and will billions of years later.


Rick
#4 2006

 

You and 3% of climatologists to be more precise.

"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

 

That's a bit of revisionism... James Hansen, the father of "global warming" called it that in 1988 and calls it that today.

"My presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to Congress, which alerted the public that global warming was underway...

...On 23 June 1988 I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost
surely were responsible."

 

Neither of which are scientific fora. Basic recurrent contrarian misunderstanding.

 

But a CNN poll is? :lol:

 

To be fair to Alric his link is not a CNN poll. It is a CNN story reporting on a University of Illinois survey of American Earth Scientists. Of course when I searched for the actual survey I didn't find it, just the same story from multiple sources. The CNN "story" is most likely a press release.

The story is actually rather poor. It only gives information on 2 of 9 questions. There also is not information on how the survey was conducted.

Alric, do you have the actual survey?

 

I wasn't trying to make a scientific point. Just that there is no basis for contrarian disbelief in the number of climatologists that don't believe in AGW.

The distinction between scientific consensus and opinion seems to elude contrarians.

But what do you know it IS a peer-reviewed journal article:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

The conclusion of the paper is rather telling:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

 

Surprised that this made publication and certainly surprised it passed peer review, if it even did (which is not clear). There is little information in the "paper" and as jhinton mentions, we don't even know what the other questions were. Do the other questions cast doubt on the capacity of CO2 to bring about catastrophic global warming? We don't know.

In any case, it would boost your point a bit more if the question read "Do you think anthropogenic CO2 is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"?

I am not in disagreement that humans are changing the climate -- my doubt is that CO2 is having a significant, catastrophic effect. As worded, the paper you cite does not provide much support to alter my opinion.

When you boil it down, there are about 75 active climate scientists in the survey who agree with the premise that humans are influencing global mean surface temperature. That would seem to be a small sample, particularly when we don't know who responded and who did not, what % of climate scientists worldwide this represents (and if it is a sufficient sample to be statistically valid), why other climatologists worldwide were left out of the survey, etc.

Here is a link to about 70 peer reviewed articles that disagree on some level with the CO2 / AGW premise. I would give this at least as much credence as the Doran "survey", if not more. At least Khandekar cites the researchers and papers involved.

 

Unfortunately they don't. They are a collection of papers that discuss other changes of climate variability with or without inclusion of man-made CO2. None of them conclude that there is no warming or that it is not related to man-made emissions.

Why would you give it more faith than the published survey? It is just a collection of papers that you accept on faith to back up your position. To quickly dismiss the hocke stick section: all those arguments were laid to rest by the 2008 publication of 16 different independent proxies, all with the same conclusion of unprecedented warming.

 

That is about 75 more than there are with active climate research that disagree with AGW.

 

It was published in EOS, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union. AGU Publications

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, a publication of the American Geophysical Union, is a weekly newspaper of geophysics that carries refereed articles on current research and on the relationship of geophysics to social and political questions, news, book reviews, AGU journal and meeting abstracts, meeting programs and reports, a comprehensive meetings calendar, and announcements of grants, fellowships, and employment opportunities. The weekly edition is published in tabloid form and is available electronically.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same author's 2002 article on the Antarctic climate turns out to be one you cite in your contrarian stance. Many have used it as such, to the point where he was forced to issue a statement about the distortion of his research by climate skeptics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html

 

No - I'll let you (and others) judge for themselves whether the antarctic is gaining or losing ice mass.

 

Yes. Doran is the author of the paper you cite. The author explains how his data was misinterpreted here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1

"In a rebuttal in The Providence Journal, in Rhode Island, the lead author of the Science paper and I explained that our studies offered no evidence that the earth was cooling. But the misinterpretation had already become legend, and in the four and half years since, it has only grown."

As usual when a paper is presented by a contrarian as evidence against AGW it is a misrepresentation.

"In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well."

oops...I guess another one of the papers you presented can be removed from the list. I have the feeling that just like the entire hockey stick section and this paper, all the papers cited by your source actually do not argue against AGW at all.

 

Good for you Alric and others to continue to set the record straight - to not let these guys get away with anything.... It's a lot of work. :deadhorse:

 

First, that's an incorrect characterization of my position. I (as I have repeated a hundred times here) do not say there is no effect of anthropogenic CO2 on temperature. I just dispute that it is likely to be significant enough to be catastrophic (or even worrisome) - a position that was not "tested" in the Doran survey, regardless of how you might want to spin it.

 

Good idea Fibb. Let's set the record straight. Let's assume you are 100% correct in your concerns about CO2.

What exactly is it that you propose in terms of CO2 reductions (% or ppm) over what time period and what is the expected effect from those reductions in CO2 emissions on the global temperature 100 years hence?

Please, clarify and set the record straight with some specifics so we all know what you have in mind. Then perhaps we may find we all agree, or if not, we can argue specifics.

 

I propose we get CO2 concentrations stabilized under 350 ppm by 2100.

By 2200 hopefully we will see some stabilization in global mean temperatures, but I doubt it.

 

What can we max out at, in the meantime,since we are at around 385 ppm now? Thoughts?

 

I've read that we can't risk going over 500 ppm or carbon cycle feedbacks might go into over drive sending us to 800 ppm and rapid/catastrophic change. 450 is probably the safest realistic maximum we could come back from in our goal towards 350.

Hopefully smart grids, EVs, negawatts, cellulosic ethanol, renewable electricity generation of all kinds and biochar can get us there.