Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: The LYING POLITICS of Climate Science Denial
Quote:
The politics of climate denial and climate greenwash share much in common — both are ways of denying reality. The comeback of climate denial is out of step with views on climate change in most of the world.
It might seem bizarre that although the science of human-caused climate change is more conclusive and worrying than ever, climate denial could enjoy a resurgence. But it’s happening — at least in Australia and a handful of other developed nations.
The comeback of climate denial is out of step with views on climate change in most of the world.
A BBC poll, released in December, said concern about climate change has risen sharply worldwide. Sixty-four percent said climate change was “very serious” — 20% higher than a similar 1998 poll. In Brazil and Chile, the figure was 86%. Eighty-three percent of Costa Ricans and Filipinos agreed.
But in Australia, Britain and the US, the trend appears to be running the other way.
A recent US poll by the Yale Project on Climate Change and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that less than 50% of adults found global warming “worrying” or “somewhat worrying.” This is 13% less than an October 2008 poll.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they believed global warming was happening, down from 71% in 2008. Those who felt global warming was caused by human activity dropped from 57% to 47%.
A November poll by the London Times said only 41% of Britons now believed climate change to be an established scientific fact.
An October poll by the Lowy Institute said concern about the threat of climate change was weakening in Australia too. Fifty six percent said climate change was very important, down 19 points from a poll two years earlier.
So if climate denial is finding new supporters here, why is this the case? After all, no climate denier has published a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal in the past 15 years.
Among climate scientists there is no debate about the reality of global warming any longer. The research of many hundreds of scientists has proved that climate change is real, that greenhouse gases released by human activity cause climate change, and that climate change represents an immense danger to human civilisation as we know it.
But there are reasons why a political space for climate denial remains open. The first of these is that climate deniers have it easy.
Climate scientists are required to deal skeptically with facts and measurable data before drawing firm conclusions. Climate deniers have no such constraints. They don’t have to prove or justify anything, but merely have or throw enough mud in the hope some of it will stick. This gives deniers an advantage in public debates.
NASA climate scientist James Hansen explained something of the problem in his recent book on the science of global warming Storms of my Grandchildren.
He said climate deniers
Quote:
“tend to act like lawyers defending a client … presenting only arguments that favour their client.
“This is in direct contradiction to my favourite description of the scientific method, by Richard Ferryman: ‘The only way to have real success in science … is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good about it and what’s bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty’.”
Hansen continued:
Quote:
“The scientific method, in one sense, is a handicap in a debate before a nonscientific audience. It works great for advancing knowledge, but to the public it can seem wishy-washy and confounding.
“The difference between scientist-style and lawyer-style tends to favour the [denier] in a discussion before an audience that is not expert in the science.
“I long ago realised that the global warming ‘debate’, in the public mind, would be long-running. I also noted that [deniers] kept changing their arguments as the real-world evidence for global warming continued to strengthen, conveniently forgetting prior statements that were proven wrong.”
Australian paleoclimate scientist Andrew Glickson has referred to another typical denier tactic.
Typically, deniers “scan the field for real or imagined, major or minor errors, inferring such errors undermine major databases, theories, or even an entire branch of science,” he wrote on ABC’s Unleashed blog in July.
Glickson compared climate deniers approach to “the eternal search for errors and gaps in Darwin’s evolution theory by creationists, based on their belief in a supernatural creator.”
A recent example of this strategy was the hype about a small error in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the predicted timeframe for Himalayan glaciers to melt completely.
A paragraph in the IPCC report said that chances the glaciers would “disappear … by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. On January 20, the IPCC announced this particular prediction was wrong after leading glaciologists drew attention to the mistake.
“Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century … This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.”
The loss of meltwater from retreating glaciers could affect the water security of up to one-sixth of the world’s population.
But this hasn’t stopped deniers from seizing on this one small error to allege the whole 938-page IPCC report is fraudulent and the entire science of climate change is bogus.
A second reason climate denial is winning some new support is that it exploits peoples fear of change and the unknown. The science of climate change is frightening. It makes plain that unless radical changes are made in our economy and society, humanity faces an uncertain future.
People are responding differently to such an all-encompassing threat. A growing number are determined to win a safe climate for future generations and want to force governments to deal with the problem. But some have become despondent and assume runaway climate change is inevitable and cannot be stopped.
Others respond with denial — finding it easier to believe nothing is wrong at all, rather than accept modern capitalism is driving humanity to a precipice. For many, climate denial is a soothing psychological balm and reflects a desperate need to escape from a troubling reality.
A third reason for the recent rise in climate denial is that denial is now a well-funded industry in its won right.
PR consultant Jim Hoggan, author of the 2009 book Climate Cover-up, has said he has found it “infuriating … to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.”
“Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation — one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world,” he wrote on the Desmogblog in June.
The mainstream media’s coverage of climate change must also share some of the blame. Despite the scientific consensus, “journalists continued to report updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier — as if both were equally valid,” Hoggan said.
The highly publicised Australian tour of prominent British climate denier, Lord Christopher Monckton, laid bare this problem.
Monckton is not a scientist, but a former journalist, a semi-professional eccentric and a one-time advisor to the conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Yet despite his lack of qualifications his climate denial speaking tour generated a vast amount of media coverage.
Monckton lies at the most kooky end of the climate denier spectrum. Even National Party leader Barnaby Joyce, himself an uncompromising climate denier, has said Monckton’s views are on the “fringe.” Even so, federal opposition leader Tony Abbott met with Monckton to discuss climate policy on February 4.
Among Monckton’s most absurd claims are that the Copenhagen climate conference was “a sort of Nuremburg rally,” that US President Barack Obama wants to use climate change as an excuse to set up a world communist government, and that the young protesters calling for strong climate action outside the Copenhagen summit were akin to the Hitler youth.
While in Australia, he even claimed NASA sabotaged the launch of its own multi-million dollar satellite a year ago because the satellite, designed to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, would have given evidence that climate change is untrue.
Monckton has a history of making wild claims. In 1987, he wrote that AIDS victims should be locked away to stop the spread of the disease. He claims to have found the cure for diseases such as Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis and influenza. In a letter to US senator John McCain he also falsely said he had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A final reason for resurgence of open climate denialism in Australia is the federal ALP government’s closet climate denialism.
PM Kevin Rudd is fond of ridiculing climate denial, but his own climate policies do nothing to address the climate crisis. The proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will cost taxpayers billions and reward the big polluters. Yet it will do nothing to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions.
By promising to take strong action on climate change, but failing to do so, the Rudd government has opened the door for climate deniers to make ground. In the face of obvious government greenwashing, some are concluding that the threat may not be all that severe after all.
The politics of climate denial and climate greenwash share much in common — both are ways of denying reality. To win against the climate deniers also requires victory against the business-as-usual policies of the major parties, which acknowledge the science in words but betray it in practice.
It's funny, hilarious even, how the 'gloomy doomies' of Man-made climate change think they can get away with changing the subject. There is always "Climate Change". Noone disputes that. The solar cycles and various galactic occurences influence our earth indisputably. That never was the issue. Climate is not some fixed system. That is like saying there is growth change in my child and if I don't stop it somehow they will eventually out grow my food supply and I'll starve to death, or some such ridiculousness. The question was, and still is, is there sufficient scientific data for a foundation that man with his feeble mechanisms can influence the earth's climate? That we are headed, according to the 'doomies', for climate hell fire and brimstone. That it justifies trillions in reallocated funds from taxes, payable to climate scientists of course, and to their chosen, who will save the planet from mango trees in Antarctica and sea side resorts in the Rocky Mts. Their basis for their Anthropomorphic prognostications, gets more corrupt by the day as the underpinnings of the "science" is ridiculed by serious climatologists not on the dole. It was and is a power grab by elites. It is a dollar grab and a political opportunist's shangra-la. Give it a rest. It is similar to the Obamacare thrust to overwhelm the clear will of the American people who want and need Healthcare reform that is fully debated and fully bipartisan. Not a Socialist's pipedream orgy to take over a magnificent portion and centrally control hundreds of millions of lives from their lofty elitist perches in Washington, bankrupting the economy and oppressing the private sector under a heavy burden to pay for it all. Even Warren Buffet said to scrap it and start over.
We all believe in climate change. That is a stupid premise to begin with. Let's face the original premise head on, you stood for, as do those scientists who scoff up the tax funded research monies, for Man-made global "warming". Many people will die because of the reallocation of trillions if they have their way.
New natural Climate change discovery in the Arctic
Joseph Finlay
As AGW advocates employ various Rope-a-Dope survival strategies after the knockout barrage of Climategate, scientists have unearthed the existence of possibly another major contributor in the blame game of climate change which could trump all the previous bogeymen. The real cuplrit? Natural causes.
Gregory Mone of AOL News has the latest developments:
Scientists have uncovered a powerful source of a leading greenhouse gas that is venting into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. The permafrost beneath the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a relatively shallow section of the Arctic Ocean, has been pumping 7.7 million tons of methane into the air each year -- roughly the amount released into the atmosphere by the rest of the world's oceans combined.
The researchers, who report their work in the March 5 issue of Science, caution that their findings in this previously unstudied region raise more questions than answers. The amount of methane released, though higher than expected, represents only a fraction of total global methane emissions.
The researchers, in their initial assessment, are at least honest in their conclusion that "more questions are raised than answers." This latest discovery alone should provide ample and allegorical evidence that climate change is far from the "settled science" that Al Gore and others on the left would scare us into believing. One point is becoming abundantly clear on all fronts: climate change is a natural cycle of the earth itself and not primarily the modern byproduct of carbon-based economies:
This underwater source has been subject to massive change. At various points in Earth's history, it has been a frozen plain that effectively traps its methane stores. But that plain was flooded as the world warmed since the last ice age, and it now sits under seawater significantly warmer than the air in the surrounding region. So while the terrestrial permafrost has remained frozen, its subsea counterpart has thawed, sending its methane stores into the atmosphere.
The broader implications of the findings are hard to gauge -- Shakhova said it is too early to tell how her research could affect the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But she and other scientists will be monitoring that icy hot spot for years to come.
The sincere study of Climate Change is a science in its infancy and needs to viewed as such. Cows and livestock the world over are owed a sincere apology by Mr. Gore that likely will not be forthcoming. _________________ "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams
It's funny, hilarious even, how the 'gloomy doomies' of Man-made climate change think they can get away with changing the subject. There is always "Climate Change". Noone disputes that. The solar cycles and various galactic occurences influence our earth indisputably. That never was the issue. Climate is not some fixed system. That is like saying there is growth change in my child and if I don't stop it somehow they will eventually out grow my food supply and I'll starve to death, or some such ridiculousness. The question was, and still is, is there sufficient scientific data for a foundation that man with his feeble mechanisms can influence the earth's climate? That we are headed, according to the 'doomies', for climate hell fire and brimstone. That it justifies trillions in reallocated funds from taxes, payable to climate scientists of course, and to their chosen, who will save the planet from mango trees in Antarctica and sea side resorts in the Rocky Mts. Their basis for their Anthropomorphic prognostications, gets more corrupt by the day as the underpinnings of the "science" is ridiculed by serious climatologists not on the dole. It was and is a power grab by elites. It is a dollar grab and a political opportunist's shangra-la. Give it a rest. It is similar to the Obamacare thrust to overwhelm the clear will of the American people who want and need Healthcare reform that is fully debated and fully bipartisan. Not a Socialist's pipedream orgy to take over a magnificent portion and centrally control hundreds of millions of lives from their lofty elitist perches in Washington, bankrupting the economy and oppressing the private sector under a heavy burden to pay for it all. Even Warren Buffet said to scrap it and start over.
We all believe in climate change. That is a stupid premise to begin with. Let's face the original premise head on, you stood for, as do those scientists who scoff up the tax funded research monies, for Man-made global "warming". Many people will die because of the reallocation of trillions if they have their way.
New natural Climate change discovery in the Arctic
Joseph Finlay
As AGW advocates employ various Rope-a-Dope survival strategies after the knockout barrage of Climategate, scientists have unearthed the existence of possibly another major contributor in the blame game of climate change which could trump all the previous bogeymen. The real cuplrit? Natural causes.
Gregory Mone of AOL News has the latest developments:
Scientists have uncovered a powerful source of a leading greenhouse gas that is venting into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. The permafrost beneath the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a relatively shallow section of the Arctic Ocean, has been pumping 7.7 million tons of methane into the air each year -- roughly the amount released into the atmosphere by the rest of the world's oceans combined.
The researchers, who report their work in the March 5 issue of Science, caution that their findings in this previously unstudied region raise more questions than answers. The amount of methane released, though higher than expected, represents only a fraction of total global methane emissions.
The researchers, in their initial assessment, are at least honest in their conclusion that "more questions are raised than answers." This latest discovery alone should provide ample and allegorical evidence that climate change is far from the "settled science" that Al Gore and others on the left would scare us into believing. One point is becoming abundantly clear on all fronts: climate change is a natural cycle of the earth itself and not primarily the modern byproduct of carbon-based economies:
This underwater source has been subject to massive change. At various points in Earth's history, it has been a frozen plain that effectively traps its methane stores. But that plain was flooded as the world warmed since the last ice age, and it now sits under seawater significantly warmer than the air in the surrounding region. So while the terrestrial permafrost has remained frozen, its subsea counterpart has thawed, sending its methane stores into the atmosphere.
The broader implications of the findings are hard to gauge -- Shakhova said it is too early to tell how her research could affect the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But she and other scientists will be monitoring that icy hot spot for years to come.
The sincere study of Climate Change is a science in its infancy and needs to viewed as such. Cows and livestock the world over are owed a sincere apology by Mr. Gore that likely will not be forthcoming.
I find it funny how easy your blog pundits find it to distort scientific findings to somehow support their own agendas.
These findings in no way "disprove" anthropomorphic climate change, as a matter of fact, it actually adds even more weight to my own position!
Had you found this "discovery" on a scientific forum, or somewhere where the findings were presented in detail without any partisan spin, you would see that these methane deposits are escaping because the permafrost is melting due to climate change(read your own article again, you will see that you yourself said it was permafrost deposits, these deposits are escaping because the ocean has warmed enough for the permafrost to MELT... ), not the other way around. This IS bad news indeed, though. It shows us that the process is going to increase in speed exponentially.
so.... how exactly does this show in ANY way a natural cause for climate change? You once again show that you don't review information from a scientific point of view. You simply copy paste attention grabbing headlines and vomit up talking points without even understanding the BASIC science behind what you are saying.
Tell me again, please, how the permafrost deposits caused the ocean to warm around them(in their frozen state, at that!) so that the permafrost could melt so that the deposits could escape, thus warming the ocean...etc etc.
See? You slipped up on that one, big time. Maybe actually read something before you post it as "OMG IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE I WIN."
Do some honest research please, you're embarrassing yourself.
We find that simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland….
In other words, a continuation of the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century.
Quote:
And all that warming would cause massive melting of the tundra and faster emissions release. That must be avoided at all cost, since the tundra feedback, coupled with the climate-carbon-cycle feedbacks that the IPCC models, could easily take us to the unmitigated catastrophe of 1000 ppm.
The good news is that a 2009 NOAA-led study found “Near-zero CH4 growth in the Arctic during 2008 suggests we have not yet activated strong climate feedbacks from permafrost and CH4 hydrates” (see “Is it just too damn late?“)
The bad news is we clearly are on very thin ice. Literally.
I had asked Lawrence if it was still reasonable to keep using this figure in my presentation, since it is so much easier to understand than the figures in his new paper.
He said, “Using the old figure is still fine as long as one mentions the caveats that permafrost is probably degrading a bit too rapidly in the original.
So I will certainly use that caveat, though, of course, I will also caveat the caveat by saying the slightly slower rate of permafrost degradation does not include Lawrence’s new analysis on the accelerated warming of the permafrost due to sea ice loss (or, for that matter, the accelerated warming of the permafrost due to faster shrub encroachment).
Note that the “B1″ scenario stabilizes CO2 concentrations in the air at 550 ppm — and the near-surface permafrost permafrost (down to 11 feet) plummets from over 4 million square miles today to 1.5 million. If concentrations hit 850 ppm in 2100 (A2), permafrost would shrink to just 800,000 square miles.
And while these projections were done with one of the world’s most sophisticated climate system models, the calculations do not include the feedback effect of the released carbon from the permafrost. That is to say, the CO2 concentrations in the model rise only as a result of direct emissions from humans, with no extra emissions counted from soils or tundra. Thus they are conservative numbers–or overestimates–of how much CO2 concentrations have to rise to trigger irreversible melting.
In short, the would-be point of atmospheric stabilization, 550 ppm isn’t stable at all — it is past the point of no return. We must stay well below 450 ppm to save the tundra and hence the climate.This new research underscores that conclusion, especially since the planet will keep warming (slowly) for decades even once we slash emissions to near zero.
Wow. In 5 minutes of researching this new material, all I can find is page after page after page of scientific journals and charts showing that this "new discovery" fits the existing climate change model perfectly.
Thanks for doing my job for me!
Quote:
A report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Abrupt Climate Change, said in December 2008 (during the Bush Administration) that warming in the Arctic could cause sea levels to rise substantially beyond scientists’ previous predictions and could result in massive releases of methane. The report said that the “rapid release to the atmosphere of methane trapped in permafrost and on continental margins” was among “four types of abrupt change in the paleoclimatic record that stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that if they were to recur, they would pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt.”
Quote:
Questions and Answers on Potentially Large Methane Releases From Arctic, and Climate Change
Sub-sea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap
March 4, 2010
BACKGROUND
What is methane?
Methane is a naturally-occurring compound that is created when organic material, such as the remains of plants and animals, rot or otherwise break down. Bacteria and other microbes play a large role in processes that produce methane. These methane-producing processes may, for example, occur in landfills as their contents age. And some animals release methane as their bodies digest their food.
Vast stores of methane are trapped in the permafrost of the Arctic--large swaths of land where the ground stays frozen. Because of climate change, some Arctic permafrost is showing signs of thawing. This thawed Arctic permafrost may release methane into the atmosphere.
Why does methane cause so much concern?
Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas. The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere inhibits the Earth's heat from being released into space. Therefore, increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may cause the Earth's temperature to increase over time.
Methane may be "stored" underground or under the seafloor as methane gas or methane hydrate; methane hydrate is a crystalline solid combining methane and water, which is stable at low temperatures and high pressure--conditions commonly found in marine sediments. When methane stores are released relatively quickly into the atmosphere, levels of atmospheric methane may rapidly spike.
As a greenhouse gas, methane is 30 times more potent (gram for gram) than carbon dioxide. This means that adding relatively modest amounts of methane to the atmosphere may yield relatively large impacts on climate.
THE NEW Science STUDY
Who conducted the study?
The study was conducted by an international team of researchers led by Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov--both from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was partially funded by the National Science Foundation.
Where is the Shakhova and Semiletov study published?
The study appears in the March 5, 2010 issue of Science.
How much methane does it take to increase warming?
There's no clear answer to that question. However, the Earth's geologic record indicates that atmospheric concentrations of methane have varied from about 0.3 to 0.4 parts per million during cold periods to about 0.6 to 0.7 parts per million during warm periods.
The Shakhova and Semiletov study indicates that methane levels in the Arctic now average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest level in 400,000 years.
How much methane is currently being released from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf?
The Shakhova and Semiletov study suggests that 7 teragrams of methane are currently being released annually from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. That's about equal to the amount of methane that is annually released from the rest of the world's oceans combined, and much more than was previously believed to be released from that part of the Arctic. What's more, the study raises the possibility that methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf could rise dramatically as its permafrost cover is thawed by warming temperatures.
What are the mechanisms that release methane in the East Siberian Arctic?
Methane may be released in two ways:
Organic material is contained in soil that is frozen into permafrost. This permafrost thaws as the Earth warms. When the organic matter in this thawing permafrost begins to decompose under anaerobic conditions, it gradually releases methane.
A subsea layer of permafrost covers a layer of seabed methane--stored as methane gas or methane hydrates. The subsea permafrost layer has long served as a barrier to the methane, sealing it in the seabed. But warming waters have begun to melt this subsea permafrost. The result: destabilization and perforations in the permafrost that create pathways for releases of underlying methane. Such releases may be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition.
Why wasn't this phenomenon predicted before? Why is it a surprise?
The East Siberian Arctic shelf is a relatively new frontier in methane studies. Earlier studies in Siberia focused on methane seeping from thawing terrestrial permafrost.
Nevertheless, the existence of methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf itself isn't a surprise; in fact, the Shakhova and Semiletov study was conducted precisely because this phenomenon was, in some ways, predicted. What is a surprise about the study results is the magnitude of methane releases and the fact that they already happening on such a scale.
Does methane released in the Arctic only warm the Arctic?
No. Once subsurface methane is released and enters the atmosphere, it may circulate all over the Earth. Also, because the Arctic has a special influence on global climate, increasing Arctic temperatures contribute to global climate change and global rises in sea level.
You are still in "Denial". There is no question that the "Climate Changes". El Nino etc. warms until there is the next cold cycle which we have been in for the last 10 yrs I believe. Global climates warm and then they chill and then they warm and then they chill and then they . . .
You have yet to prove Anthropomorphic influence driving these changes, that is the issue. Your idea of proof is "you have not unproven it". Well then scientifically prove that God does not exist. The science you cite so adoringly is some of the same that the world is laughing at. That's right, circle your wagons against the onslaught of truth. Go down with the ship USS Gore's-a-billionaire-con-artist. I laugh at your science ahahahahaheeheeheeheeheeheeheehohohohohohohohahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah . . . with a straight face of course. _________________ "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams
I laugh at your science ahahahahaheeheeheeheeheeheeheehohohohohohohohahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah . . . with a straight face of course.
Yeah, you do.
You laugh at science. You laugh at fact. You laugh at civilization. You laugh at progress. You seem to laugh a lot, at pretty much ANY well-argued position that challenges your belief. No clear rebuttals, just laughter and one-liners.
No valid responses, I see, to a post that has substance. No rebuttals.
I feel that I explained my position quite clearly, providing sources.
Your response? "I laugh at your science."
Yeah. Your position is clearly superior.
I await an intelligent rebuttal, till then, laugh it up, those of us who take science seriously aren't. _________________ http://www.evilbible.com/
Thanks. _________________ "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams
You are still in "Denial". There is no question that the "Climate Changes". El Nino etc. warms until there is the next cold cycle which we have been in for the last 10 yrs I believe. Global climates warm and then they chill and then they warm and then they chill and then they . . .
Quote:
While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.
First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature?Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?
Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.
Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.
So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.
In short: No.
flyupsidedown wrote:
You have yet to prove Anthropomorphic influence driving these changes, that is the issue.
I personally have not proven anything. You agree that climate change is actually happening, good, some common ground we can start from. (I remember a couple years ago when you denied even THAT, how soon you seem to forget.) Now, you suggest that there is NO "proof" that this climate change is anthropogenic in nature.
First of all, let's correct our terminology. We aren't presenting "proof" of anything. The scientific data that is collected is studied and then interpreted. This goes through years of peer review and arguing between scientists. when enough data is collected that all points to a particular hypothesis being correct, a consensus is reached.
This is exactly why science has no place in the kangaroo court of partisan-politics and public opinion. In todays fast-moving sound-byte culture, we want quick answers. We want a "yes" or "no," NOW! That is not how science works. To argue that this then means that the hypothesis is incorrect in it's entirety is of the highest level of ignorance. You are showing a profound lack of understanding of the scientific process.
Now, back to this "consensus."
Quote:
"Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue;
and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. Fortunately, there is a bit of research that looked specifically at this very question -- ***((IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT AS WELL))**
flyupsidedown wrote:
Your idea of proof is "you have not unproven it".
No, my idea of "proof"(there's that word again) is a scientific consensus based on hard scientific data gathered in the field over a period of many, many years. I only ask that if you wish for your own opinion to garner any respect, that you at the very least show some effort in making a real case. Thus far you have only shown that your opinion is based solely on faith, not scientific evidence that points to that conclusion.
If I am mistaken in this belief I apologize, and I will withdraw any offensive statements I may have made, provided you show me the slightest courtesy by actually engaging in a true intelligent debate. With real evidence.
flyupsidedown wrote:
Well then scientifically prove that God does not exist.
We are not here to discuss theology or philosophy, please refrain from changing the subject when things are going badly. We are here to discuss reality, and a very real change in our global climate, that can be measured scientifically. "God" cannot be measured scientifically, as you well know, therefore that is a rather poor attempt to muddle the conversation and distract from the real issue.
flyupsidedown wrote:
The science you cite so adoringly is some of the same that the world is laughing at.
Who's laughing, exactly? See above for a list of the world's scientific organizations that agree with this consensus. the only ones that seem to be laughing are individuals such as yourselves. Quite frankly, I don't put much stock in your personal opinion. No offense.
Your opinion doesn't effect the world one iota. It doesn't change the fact that oceans are rising, ice caps are melting, permafrost is melting(As we now know), and the climate is rapidly shifting. I would ask that you keep your replies on subject. If you feel the need to regress to mere sniping and joking around as opposed to honest, intelligent discussion of a very real situation, then perhaps you shouldn't represent yourself as one with any answers. You are only a distraction. _________________ http://www.evilbible.com/
I personally have not proven anything. You agree that climate change is actually happening, good, some common ground we can start from. (I remember a couple years ago when you denied even THAT, how soon you seem to forget.) Now, you suggest that there is NO "proof" that this climate change is anthropogenic in nature.
You are right that you haven't proven anything. You are wrong that I all of the sudden 'believe' in climate change. Climate change was never the issue. Man-made "global warming" was always the issue. You seem to constantly want to run away from the original premise, Man-made Global Warming.
Quote:
First of all, let's correct our terminology. We aren't presenting "proof" of anything. The scientific data that is collected is studied and then interpreted. This goes through years of peer review and arguing between scientists. when enough data is collected that all points to a particular hypothesis being correct, a consensus is reached.
Science is not made by CONSENSUS.
You either have verifiable, irrefutable evidence reached by experimental observations and/or can predict future results based on that data, or you don't. And you don't. What you have is an Evangelist Al Gore pontificating his worldview based on some obscure computer models that we now know were misprogrammed slanting outcomes in favor of "the sky is falling". These were prognosticators of a predetermined worldview. The actual science proves them wrong in that we are in a Global cool down. Polar bear populations are growing, ice masses are growing etc. That is verifiable science. Don't try to obfuscate the issue with 'climate change' bait and switch. Gore is a non-scientist blowhard with an extremely elitist worldview of which he sees himself saving the world and possibly the universe. Talk about fringe.
_________________ "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
