The Skeptics Case - Global Warming

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The Skeptics Case

The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

Please read the link. Go ahead and read it critically. It presents the data and the argument very clearly and isn't a polemic.

I think the main point here is that there is sufficient grounds for there to be a debate/discussion on the issue in society, but that politics and the media are not allowing it. Just like the argument for free speech in general, if the argument on one side is so clear and convincing, then what's the harm in allowing the other side to point out the perceived flaws in it? But a seemingly large proportion of the proponents of global warming tend to just try to shut up the objections. This is probably coming much more from the political arena than from the scientific arena, but they do overlap.

Think about your own reaction to these challenges. How do you respond? Do you want to try and independently verify the claims in some manner or do you simply dismiss it and stick to your belief as it is right now? Then I suggest you think about whether you do this on other subjects too; is it your pattern or is this topic special?

Comments

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

The bottom line is people who assert that man-made emissions are the primary culprit of global warming have not demonstrated a mathematical formula relating change in global temps to the summation of all causes of global warming multiplied by their respective contribution factors to 95% confidence intervals. Anything less than that is intellectually dishonest. What's good enough for gravity is good enough for man-made global warming.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Place + Stuff that wasn't there = Things changed.

I'm 100% confident in this mathematical equation.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

What's good enough for gravity is good enough for man-made global warming.

Actually, we don't know what causes gravity. We do know what causes anthropic global warming, and even know the proportions of effect.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

The word cause is nowhere in my comment. Any excuse to get away from mathematical rigor.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Sure it is.

to the summation of all causes

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

So you noticed that I used the plural form and that considering anthropic only is not sufficient.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I noticed you were wrong, yes.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Don't you want to know what causes global warming? That is the point isn't it?

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

I want to know a) all the causes of global warming (using anthropic only is a cop-out) and b) their contribution as a % with at least 95% confidence. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

As a matter of logical precedence, the first question that needs to be answered is whether global warming actually exists. On this level there is almost complete certainty with the summary dataset showing a clear indication (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt). There are genuine questions (http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/alumni/history/uncertainties/text.html) of doubt on the accuracy of such records, however recent research (http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php) from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project directly addressed these concerns and found that the instrument record is correct. In particular it's notable that the project was headed by a (former) climate change skeptic and partially funded by the Koch Foundation. Further is the final nail in the coffin of the so-called "climategate" accusatations that suggested that climate scientists had altered or hidden data.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Given that it is almost certain that the globe is warming the new question to be asked is whether or not this is significant. Critics of mainstream concerns point to historical (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/fig6-10b.png) and pre-historical (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf) proxy data which indicates times in the past which were warmer. Proxy data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html) is commonly taken from astronomical sun spot records for the recent past, dendrochronology for up to ca 10,000 years ago, varve analysis for ca 13 000 years, Beryllium-10 analysis of dust in ice-cores to ca 80,000 years ago, speleothems for ca 500,000 years ago, ice core crystal layers for ca 800,000 years, and oxygen isotope analysis to ca 540,000,000 years.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The fact it has been warmer in the past does give excellent opportunities for comparison with current climatic projections. These projections, trying to take into account an enormous variety of scenarios (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2863.1) of international co-operation, industrial development and population growth. Because of this diversity even the most likely (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/index.htm) scenarios was for a global mean temperature increase of between 1.1 and 6.4 °C. In a popular and accessible manner, Mark Lynas maps the changes degree-by-degree (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange); the upper end of the scale is utterly catastrophic. Even with current temperature increases the World Health Organization estimates excess deaths due to global warming is already 140,000 people per annum (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf).

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

n activity. Of this the evidence is very strongly in favour of the latter. Temperature is driven by a variety of sources, primarily solar irradiation, but also greenhouse gases, ozone, volcanic activity, sulphates etc. In the last 100 years (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2852&rep=rep1&type=pdf) greenhouse gases have been responsible for a temperature increase of 0.7 degrees, solar irradiation by 0.2, ozone by about 0.08, volcanics by -0.15 and sulphates by -0.25. Those greenhouse gases are not due to additional natural emissions.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html#7-3-1">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

n activity. Of this the evidence is very strongly in favour of the latter. Temperature is driven by a variety of sources, primarily solar irradiation, but also greenhouse gases, ozone, volcanic activity, sulphates etc. <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2852&rep=rep1&type=pdf">In the last 100 years</a> greenhouse gases have been responsible for a temperature increase of 0.7 degrees, solar irradiation by 0.2, ozone by about 0.08, volcanics by -0.15 and sulphates by -0.25. Those greenhouse gases are not due to additional natural emissions. <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html#7-3-1Net natural emissions are 0% of the total; human emissions are 100% of <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html#7-3-1">the net amount</a> released into the atmosphere. Further, despite a cooling effect of the <a href="ftp://ftp.atmos.washington.edu/mantua/pnw_impacts/INDICES/PDO.latest">Pacific Decadal</a> climate pattern and a slight decrease in the last thirty years of <a href="http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract">solar irradiation</a>, temperatures are still increasing.

With human activity primarily responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions which are causing global warming, the question arises on what is the best strategy to deal with such emissions applying a standard risk analysis.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that first line should read: "Global warming is occuring and it is significant; a question arises on whether it is caused by human activity."

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Apologies for the formatting, LJ is being weird on me.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

The bottom line is people who assert that man-made emissions are the primary culprit of global warming

Let's go and make an assumption that man-made emissions are a secondary culprit.

Then what? Do we just go "well, if they're not the primary reason, fuck it let's keep going"?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I would say that we can then focus on determining if the warming is really a problem for us, how it's a problem for us, what the benefits will be, and whether or not we actually want to do something, and then figure out what that something is. The AGW assumption short-circuits all that and locks us into a political "solution" to a political problem.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Why would you start determining if global warming is a problem only after deciding we're not the primary cause?

Is your stance that global warming is not an issue as of right now?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Because the insistence that we are the primary cause is short-circuiting a proper analysis. So, getting that undone is a necessary first step to being able to do a proper analysis.

Yes, I do not believe that global warming is an issue right now.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So is your belief that there isn't even any kind of global warming going on, or that there is global warming, but the effects are incorrect?

Do you believe that, if not for global warming, we should not be concerned about the pollution caused by many of our energy harvesting/usage?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I would say that the purported effects are overblown in terms of being predominantly negative, mainly because there's an unstated assumption that the current state of the planet is the best state and that we should strive to maintain it statically. It also doesn't appear to be warming as much as has been claimed, so that so far it's within the margin of error that it might not be actually warming.

Pollution is a worry on it's own, regardless of global warming, and should be handled as a problem anyways.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

It also doesn't appear to be warming as much as has been claimed, so that so far it's within the margin of error that it might not be actually warming.

Seriously? Nobody doubts that the global warming is actually happening. The only thing that were uncertain (to about a 5% level) is the cause.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The World Health Organisation says that 140,000 people (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf) are dying per annum due to global warming.

I mean, between your beliefs and these calculations, I must confess I'm leaning towards the latter.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Looking at the summary, none of those are global warming related that I can see.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The summary here (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/) might help.

"The global warming that has occurred since the 1970s was causing over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004."

Also, go to table 6 in the full report.