Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[smokymountainrain]

Great logic there, Indy. If man didn't cause it last time, we couldn't possibly be causing it now.

If mankind didn't cause it last time, is there a chance mankind isn't causing it now?

[Indy Coug]

Great logic there, Indy. If man didn't cause it last time, we couldn't possibly be causing it now.

Don't be a doofus. If we don't know how to create a valid climate model absent human influence, how can we accurately model the marginal changes that are due to mankind?

[Pelado]

CO2 hits 400 ppm for the first time in .... oh ..... three million years or so.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...stone-400-ppm/

Good thing this is all just a liberal conspiracy. Phew.

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide:

Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[Jeff Lebowski]

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Thanks. That's a funny editorial. Yes, CO2 levels have varied dramatically throughout geologic history. That was covered quite thoroughly in the article I linked. Those changes also corresponded to periods of massive change in the earth's climate.

But don't worry, doubters! The consequences of climate change will take a long time to play out. And the train is going full speed ahead. Even if we stopped everything now, temps would rise for centuries. From the NG article:

"What everything is telling you is that the system is very sensitive," says Raymo. "The threshold for losing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is very close to where we are now. Everything in the geologic record says we're very close. You don't need a lot of CO2—you just need a little bit of warming, and it doesn't matter how you get it."It took between a thousand and a few thousand years, at the end of Stage 11, to melt all or most of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The whole interglacial lasted 30,000 years, nearly three times as long as ours has lasted so far. So the warming had a long time to build up. That's the good news.
But at 400 ppm, CO2 is much higher now, and it's still climbing fast. And even if we could stop that rise tomorrow, the planet's temperature would still climb for centuries.
"For me personally that's the scary thing," says Raymo. "We really don't know what we've already committed ourselves to."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Don't be a doofus. If we don't know how to create a valid climate model absent human influence, how can we accurately model the marginal changes that are due to mankind?

This is the same kind of simplistic logic used against evolution.

[Indy Coug]

This is the same kind of simplistic logic used against evolution.

Bullshit. Evolution isn't an exercise in regression analysis.

[statman]

Do you really not understand the arguments of those who disagree with you?

Shame on you. Seriously.

No one is denying that CO2 levels have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. No one is denying that a large proportion of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to man's actions. No one is denying that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. What we are saying is that the MODELS that predict temperature weight the importance of CO2 as a driver of global temperature WAY too heavily. The models are obviously wrong and the attempts to continue using them are ridiculous. If they were good, and CO2 was a main driver in global temperature change, why are we at a time of record CO2 - with global CO2 concentrations having increased each year in the last 50 - and yet we've had no statistically significant increase in global temperature in at least 15 years. Those two facts right there tell you that your model is shit, and any "scientist" who's simply not whoring for "global warming" research dollars would readily admit the fact...

[cowboy]

This is the same kind of simplistic logic used against evolution.

If you can set the snark aside, I'm interested in your opinion on four questions: 1) How bad is it to have rising C02 levels, and at what level is it critical for the planet? 2) Since we've seen these levels before, how can we be certain that human activity is causing the rise? This is a question, not a challenge. 3) Is it even possible to stem the rise of C02 levels, given that China and India have no interest in playing, and they have the potential to emit exponentially more C02 than the rest of the world combined. 4) If it is both necessary and possible to curb rising C02 levels, what would be the cost?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you really not understand the arguments of those who disagree with you?

Shame on you. Seriously.

No one is denying that CO2 levels have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. No one is denying that a large proportion of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to man's actions. No one is denying that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. What we are saying is that the MODELS that predict temperature weight the importance of CO2 as a driver of global temperature WAY too heavily. The models are obviously wrong and the attempts to continue using them are ridiculous. If they were good, and CO2 was a main driver in global temperature change, why are we at a time of record CO2 - with global CO2 concentrations having increased each year in the last 50 - and yet we've had no statistically significant increase in global temperature in at least 15 years. Those two facts right there tell you that your model is shit, and any "scientist" who's simply not whoring for "global warming" research dollars would readily admit the fact...

lol. Statman is on a roll lately.

Three points:

1) There are actually quite a few people who deny that CO2 is rising or they deny that the rise is anthropogenic. You might even find some in this thread.

2) Models are, by definition, a simplification of reality and contain a great deal of uncertainty. They give a range of probable answers and so we shouldn't expect them to make exact predictions. Nevertheless, you have consistently exaggerated the modeling errors and uncertainty and to claim that they are completely useless is nonsense.

3) Your last sentence illustrates that you have swallowed (hook, line, and sinker) the ridiculous premise that there is a massive conspiracy in the scientific community. Shame on you. Seriously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you can set the snark aside, I'm interested in your opinion on four questions: 1) How bad is it to have rising C02 levels, and at what level is it critical for the planet?

There is really no question that atmospheric CO2 impacts temperature and climate. What level is critical is a very tough question to answer, but consider the fact that we have gone from ~310 to 400 just in my lifetime. Models aren't perfect (see post above), but the consensus of the current climate models is kind of scary in terms of what might happen in the next 50-100 years. Maybe it will be a few centuries before the really significant impacts hit, but we are on a runaway train.

2) Since we've seen these levels before, how can we be certain that human activity is causing the rise? This is a question, not a challenge.

Yes, the geologic record shows significant fluctuations, but we are talking about time scales covering hundreds of thousands or millions of years. And the earth has gone through periods of massive (and sometimes catastrophic in terms of species) climate change during those periods. If you do a simple mass balance based on burning of fossil fuels, you can calculate fairly accurately how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere each year and the rise in CO2 that we have measured correlates with those calculations.

3) Is it even possible to stem the rise of C02 levels, given that China and India have no interest in playing, and they have the potential to emit exponentially more C02 than the rest of the world combined.

Personally, I doubt it is possible.

4) If it is both necessary and possible to curb rising C02 levels, what would be the cost?

See answer above. If the cost of stopping CO2 rise is to irreparably cripple the world economy, we would probably be better off forging ahead with fossil fuels. At the same time, I am hopeful that a gradual transition to cleaner energies and nuclear energies will make some kind of dent.

[Shaka]

See answer above. If the cost of stopping CO2 rise is to irreparably cripple the world economy, we would probably be better off forging ahead. At the same time, I am hopeful that a gradual transition to cleaner energies and nuclear energies will make some kind of dent.

I think this is reasonable.

[USUC]

See answer above. If the cost of stopping CO2 rise is to irreparably cripple the world economy, we would probably be better off forging ahead with fossil fuels. At the same time, I am hopeful that a gradual transition to cleaner energies and nuclear energies will make some kind of dent.

Natural gas and methane hydrates to the rescue.

I think the more important justification for cleaner energies is pollution and particulates. I think that is a more effective strategy than purposely exaggerating components off global warming.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[cowboy]

There is really no question that atmospheric CO2 impacts temperature and climate. What level is critical is a very tough question to answer, but consider the fact that we have gone from ~310 to 400 just in my lifetime. Models aren't perfect (see post above), but the consensus of the current climate models is kind of scary in terms of what might happen in the next 50-100 years. Maybe it will be a few centuries before the really significant impacts hit, but we are on a runaway train.

How do we explain the cooling scare 40 years ago, and scientists assertion that we were headed for another ice age? Were C02 levels falling then, or were scientists just wrong? Also, what explains the warmer climate in in the first Millenium AD? Ultimately, my skepticism lies in the observation that scientists always seem to be forecasting a calamity that never comes to fruition. I'm not saying they're wrong regarding climate change, but I'm hesitant to endorse any major changes to our economy based on their predictions, based on their track record. Also, anyone on either side of the argument who bases their argument on the last 5, 10, or 20 years' temps needs to take a refresher course in statistics.

Yes, the geologic record shows significant fluctuations, but we are talking about time scales covering hundreds of thousands or millions of years. And the earth has gone through periods of massive (and sometimes catastrophic in terms of species) climate change during those periods. If you do a simple mass balance based on burning of fossil fuels, you can calculate fairly accurately how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere each year and the rise in CO2 that we have measured correlates with those calculations.

This makes sense.

Personally, I doubt it is possible.

I do too.

See answer above. If the cost of stopping CO2 rise is to irreparably cripple the world economy, we would probably be better off forging ahead with fossil fuels. At the same time, I am hopeful that a gradual transition to cleaner energies and nuclear energies will make some kind of dent.

I agree. The problem I see is that nobody can agree on which clean energy to use. Wind kills birds, nuclear creates potential for truly catastrophic disaster, dams kill fish, etc. Ultimately, I think we may be better off trying to create incentives to do simple things that use CO2 - plant trees, create more green space, etc., but I've not done the math on that and don't know if it would make a dent.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How do we explain the cooling scare 40 years ago, and scientists assertion that we were headed for another ice age? Were C02 levels falling then, or were scientists just wrong? Also, what explains the warmer climate in in the first Millenium AD? Ultimately, my skepticism lies in the observation that scientists always seem to be forecasting a calamity that never comes to fruition. I'm not saying they're wrong regarding climate change, but I'm hesitant to endorse any major changes to our economy based on their predictions, based on their track record. Also, anyone on either side of the argument who bases their argument on the last 5, 10, or 20 years' temps needs to take a refresher course in statistics.

The cooling scare of the 70's has been grossly exaggerated by global warming skeptics. 90% of the scientific articles at the time predicted a warming trend, not cooling. There wasn't anything close to a cooling consensus in the 70's.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008BAMS2370.1

Don't reject science just yet, amigo.

[statman]

There is really no question that atmospheric CO2 impacts temperature and climate.

What there is no question of is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas in laboratory conditions. It's impact on global temperature and climate is very much in question - especially since while it's increased steadily for the last 150 years and there have been a few long-term swings in temperature that CO2 concentrations didn't predict. this is especially true of the slight decrease in temperatures that we saw during the sixties and seventies, followed by strongly increasing temperatures for about twenty years to the mid nineties, and now stagnant atmospheric temperatures from about 1997 until now.

When you have an IV that is consistently moving in one direction, and DV that for one ten-year period is downward sloping, then for a twenty year period is strongly upwardly sloping and then for 15 or so years has small random changes without a strong trend either way, I'd say the value of that IV as a predictor is pretty much in doubt.

Does CO2 affect temperature? Probably a little. But the more time goes on, the worse the preeminent climate models that rely on CO2 as the big driver look. We're currently outside the 95% CL (on the low side) of the model used by the IPCC to pitch climate change legislation to the world. They obviously need to build a new model, but doing so could relegate CO2 to an 'also ran' position behind some variables that would give bureaucrats less control over world economic activity, and that's just not going to be allowed to happen. So the facts be damned! It's full-stem ahead on trying to limit carbon emissions! Because during selected parts of our recent history, increases in CO2 levels are really strongly correlated with increases in temperature...

It is said that empires don't die, they commit suicide. Trying to dramatically limit CO2 levels (in the absence of reliable data showing what damage it's actually done) is the pulling back of the hammer on the 38 special that the western world has pressed up against its collective temple...