Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[eyeball]

One also has to question the motives of people in charge of this so-called science. Was it a mistake? Probably. But when you find out that people heading these projects are Al Gore's cheif scientifc ally for instance, some questions arise, as well as concerns. Especially when countries around the world are forming policy based on their so-called findings.

Lets imagine we're talking about the global economic meltdown in light of the economic theories we've been subscribing to.

One also has to question the motives of people in charge of this so-called science. Was it a mistake? Probably. But when you find out the people who promoted these theories are still being taken seriously, some questions arise, as well as concerns. Especially when countries around the world are still forming policy based on their so-called science.

I'm always struck by how little doubt its taken to derail GW theory compared to how much doubt its taking to shake our faith in the theories that our economy is melting under.

It really IS all about motives isn't it?

[Riverwind]

actually I am correct. I don't give a pooop about collective emissions.

Unfortunately, the people who negotiate treaties like Kyoto do. That means you are responsible for your share of the tar sands emissions whether you like it or not. The cost of reducing these collective emissions must be borne by everyone. If you want to insist that only the mythical rich should pay the you are basically saying you don't really care about emissions and simply see the CO2 hysteria as a way to redistribute income.

Like Al Gores own energy bill being 20 times the average american household.

So? Al Gore is a hypocrite. What else is new? Numerous studies have shown that Canadians in the top income brackets live relatively modest lifestyles and there is no reason to believe their CO2 production is larger than the average or even the poor.

[Riverwind]

I'm always struck by how little doubt its taken to derail GW theory compared to how much doubt its taking to shake our faith in the theories that our economy is melting under.

We over 400 years where different countries have experimented with different economic theories and figured out what works and what leads to disaster. This kind of experimental evidence is something that climate science simply cannot provide. The current problems are no worse than the meltdown in the 80s and 90s and we will get through them. Edited December 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

Lets imagine we're talking about the global economic meltdown in light of the economic theories we've been subscribing to.

One also has to question the motives of people in charge of this so-called science. Was it a mistake? Probably. But when you find out the people who promoted these theories are still being taken seriously, some questions arise, as well as concerns. Especially when countries around the world are still forming policy based on their so-called science.

I'm always struck by how little doubt its taken to derail GW theory compared to how much doubt its taking to shake our faith in the theories that our economy is melting under.

It really IS all about motives isn't it?

getting off track eyeball, but your are right on the economic theory.

It is just that, theory, not science, and there are many many schools of economic theory, and there is no way to "prove" any of them.

when you say this "It really IS all about motives isn't it?"

would you clarify what you mean by this, I would really appreciate it. thanks

oh and our economy is melting, I do agree on that.

[Keepitsimple]

I started this thread to point out that "climate experts" say that the sun's output only varies by "tenths" of one percent - and they dismiss this as insignificant. These same climate experts however, also say that CO2 is the root of all evil - even though it only makes up only 4 hundreths of one percent of greenhouse gases (380 parts per million).

Edited December 23, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[stignasty]

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

* Stages of Denial,

* Scientific Topics,

* Types of Argument, and

* Levels of Sophistication.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666

Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.

[Riverwind]

Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic"

Most of these "rebuttles" are based on misinformation or misrepresentation of the facts.

Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.

Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

Climate science has yet to establish that the CO2 theory can successfully predict future events. Therefore the CO2 theory does not even deserve to be called a theory - it is really an unverifiable hypothesis.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.

The climate models have limited resolution and rely on an enormous number of parameters which can be adjusted by the modellers. This means that we cannot know whether the match between past climate and the model output is a result of correct theory or model tuning. The only way to demonstrate that the climate model theory is correct is to make preductions of the future that actually come true. So far, the climate models have done a rotten job of predicting the future which is why the IPCC keeps changing their forecasts whenever they publish a new report.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.

So what? That does not mean that climate scientists are entitled to pretend their hypothesis is more certain than it is. It does not mean politicians should invest trillions based on a unproven and untestable hypothesis.

Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.

Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.

Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.

The interactions between the sun, the oceans and the clouds are poorly understood. All of the these mechanisms are interelated and are likely a cause of temperature variation. We don't understand them so they cannot be ruled out as an explaination for the warming. This is one of the reasons why computer models are not evidence. A computer model can only take into account what is known. Unknown or poorly understood phenomena do not appear in computer models.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

There are big gaps in the satellite record and different sets of data say different things. The author cherry picked PMOD because it shows a decline. Scientists who actually do research into the sun prefer a composite of different measurements which shows a slight rise over the last 30 years. (aside: the fact that he does not mention that different sets of data exist demonstrates why all of his claims must be viewed very skeptically. Edited December 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

when you say this "It really IS all about motives isn't it?"

would you clarify what you mean by this, I would really appreciate it. thanks

I'm referring to what motivates people to take the positions they do. Mostly I think its fear. Shady suggests we have to question the motives of the 'people in charge of this so-called science'. The standard answer seems to be that these people are motivated by a desire to wreck the economy. It doesn't take very long to also discover that these people are also communists and leftists and are part of some global conspiracy bent on destroying the economy. Its a ridiculous proposition but it seems to resonate with a lot of people.

Where do you even begin to question the sort of motivation that would lead to that conclusion about my motives?

I suppose I should be used to this as a War on Terror skeptic where my skeptisim is apparently motivated by my hatred for freedom and I feel this way because I've been indoctrinated into a leftists/communist global conspiracy.

Is there a pattern here or is it just me?

[Riverwind]

I suppose I should be used to this as a War on Terror skeptic where my skeptisim is apparently motivated by my hatred for freedom and I feel this way because I've been indoctrinated into a leftists/communist global conspiracy.

It would help if you were less blind to rhetoric coming from the AGW alarmists. They routinely overstate the significance of the science (often engage in outright lies). To make matters worse, several activists and influenance climate scientists have publically stated that it is ok to lie about climate change in order to motivate people to act. They also use the 'science' as a cudgel to bludgeon opposition into accepting their economic policies despite the fact that climate science has nothing to do with economics. There is considerable room for debate about whether limiting CO2 emissions is the most cost effective way to deal with the problem even if one accepts that it is a problem.

Of course you have the 'exxon' conspiracy theories which keep coming up despite the fact that there is a lot companies pushing the AGW scare because they know they can make money off it.

In short, I don't really see any difference between the 'war on terror' and the 'war on CO2'. Both are rhetorical devices used by political advocates that seek to impose their social and economic views on others. It is too bad that truth and common sense get sacrificed in the process.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

I'm referring to what motivates people to take the positions they do. Mostly I think its fear. Shady suggests we have to question the motives of the 'people in charge of this so-called science'. The standard answer seems to be that these people are motivated by a desire to wreck the economy. It doesn't take very long to also discover that these people are also communists and leftists and are part of some global conspiracy bent on destroying the economy. Its a ridiculous proposition but it seems to resonate with a lot of people.

Where do you even begin to question the sort of motivation that would lead to that conclusion about my motives?

I suppose I should be used to this as a War on Terror skeptic where my skeptisim is apparently motivated by my hatred for freedom and I feel this way because I've been indoctrinated into a leftists/communist global conspiracy.

Is there a pattern here or is it just me?

ok eyeball, gotcha.

I agree we should question the motives of everyone who tells us anything.

The difference being sadly some display partisanship, in questioning the motives, party partisanship.

To say anyone would like to destroy the economy is if it is monolithic anyway......is silly

What if it was being done to create another form of economy?

Exercise control and austerity on the masses.

It is plausible.

But it is hard for those who have mind set, dictated by political party ideology to see more then one possibility.

Anyone and everyone should be a war on terror skeptic, since it is a bunch of bullcrap anyway!

I have issues with the whole man-made global warming scenario for a number of reasons.

One: CO2 is exceptionally good for plants (check out how greenhouse growers use it to their advantage)

Two: Water vapour is actually the number 1 green house gas

Three: the means (cap and trade and carbon cards/taxes) to dealing with the problem are as cockamamie as the war on terror is in dealing with terrorism. It doesn't make sense.

[eyeball]

I have issues with the whole man-made global warming scenario for a number of reasons.

We have a much deeper problem as a species. We obviously have some serious issues with the role skepticism and certainty play in the formation of public policies. This is why I made reference to the small amount of scientific doubt its taken to avoid implementing public policies intended to address GW vs the huge amount of scientific doubt its taking to shake our faith in our economic policies.

Riverwind's point that...

We over 400 years where different countries have experimented with different economic theories and figured out what works and what leads to disaster.

...is essentially pointless considering we also have over 4000 years of people and policies from around the world who claim God exists - without so much as a scintilla of evidence to back it up.

For what its worth, I think the AGW issue is all but dead. I'm more concerned about our species inability to refute or accept evidence without politicizing it.

[Riverwind]

...is essentially pointless considering we also have over 4000 years of people and policies from around the world who claim God exists - without so much as a scintilla of evidence to back it up.

Belief (ot not) God is a personal choice that is really none of your business. If people use their belief to justify making impositions on others then the problem is their willingness to make impositions - not the belief itself. The fact is people have many irrational beliefs which don't involve God that they really should keep to themselves.

For what its worth, I think the AGW issue is all but dead. I'm more concerned about our species inability to refute or accept evidence without politicizing it.

The trouble is people went from the scientific evidence (be what it may) and immediately insisted that it required certain political actions. This produced opposition from people who opposed those types of political actions. I think a lot more would been done if the activists acknowledged that:

1) It is impossible to cut emissions without viable replacements. Attempting to legislate existing technologies out of existance before the alternatives are developed is economic suicide.

2) If CO2 is really a problem then everyone needs to accept less. It is a mistake to use the problem as an excuse for wealth re-distribution schemes that have already been rejected by the electorate.

3) Sometimes the most "common sense" solution is not the best. i.e. if CO2 is a problem then "common sense" says that we should stop emitting CO2. However, the cost of eliminating CO2 is so high that adaptation is likely a more cost effective alternative.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The trouble is people went from the scientific evidence (be what it may) and immediately insisted that they required certain political actions.

Other people are taking their economic evidence (such as it is) ansd insisting that political action should be avoided at all costs.

To make matters worse, several activists and influenance climate scientists have publically stated that it is ok to lie about climate change in order to motivate people to act.

I cant refute the veracity of this claim. I've seen government officials in my very own community, police no less, admit to lying in an attempt to galvanize people with fear. If there is any authority people in our society have been encouraged to trust its the police.

The real trouble is that scientists, like preists, politicians and police simply are not trusted anymore. In fact I think we've probably reached a critical mass of distrust in our most important institutions and that in my opinion, is now the greatest threat our species faces. We are lost and adrift in a vast ocean of confusion and stupidty just at the moment we most need understanding and intelligence.

If the goal of AGW skeptics has been to convince people that scientists shouldn't be trusted I think they've succeded beyond their wildest expectations. The real mystery now is trying to figure out why you keep quoting scientists. What makes your's more believable or trustworthy?

[Riverwind]

The real trouble is that scientists, like preists, politicians and police simply are not trusted anymore. In fact I think we've probably reached a critical mass of distrust in our most important institutions and that in my opinion, is now the greatest threat our species faces.

I am inclined to agree. In fact, once I realized how dishonest the climate science community has been I felt it would tarnish the reputation of all scientists and the scientific process for years, if not decades to come. It will hurt society in the long run.

If the goal of AGW skeptics has been to convince people that scientists shouldn't be trusted I think they've succeded beyond their wildest expectations.

It is really the AGW activists and scientists who brought this on themselves by insisting that the "science was settled" and "skeptical scientists are all shills for big oil". Both claims are completely dishonest but designed to prevent debate and discussion. When faced with such tactics it is not possible to engage in a rational discussion about the science and options. One is reduced to saying: the activist/scientists are lying there are a great number of unsettled issues and skeptical scientists are skeptical because that is their best interpretation of the evidence available - not because they are paid to say that.

The real mystery now is trying to figure out why you keep quoting scientists. What makes your's more believable or trustworthy?

They aren't. But what else can I do if someone tries to use the authority of the IPCC or the unspecified "majority of scientists" to claim that certainty exists when there is none?

If you are looking for a middle road I recommend reading what Peilke Jr and Peilke Sr. have to say. They both feel action is required but are honest about the state of the science and the options available.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

They aren't. But what else can I do if someone tries to use the authority of the IPCC or the unspecified "majority of scientists" to claim that certainty exists when there is none?

I'm in the same dilemma so I know exactly how you feel. Perhaps the only way to resolve this is to specify exactly what the majority consensus is by a direct vote amongst climate scientists. Despite your mistrust of even your own scientists, you sure as hell don't want me voting directly on it do you?

I imagine this might still be too difficult an option for you to accept as I understand the scientists who still feel certain outnumber the ones who don't by about 80 - 90%.

OTOH I'd be quite willing to forgo a vote on taking action against CO2 emissions if we could apply the same standard of accepting a 10 - 20% doubt factor to put the brakes on our current economic policies. This would be an easy one for me to accept because I'm willing to bet our CO2 problems wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if we did.

Edited December 25, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

Perhaps the only way to resolve this is to specify exactly what the majority consensus is by a direct vote amongst climate scientists.

That would make as much sense as determining what to do about senate reform by having a direct vote among senators.

The climate science community is part of the problem. Back in 2003 they had a chance to stand up science when some serious flaws were found in "Hockey Stick" paper. However, they decided that protecting that paper as a propaganda tool was more important than good science. For that reason, their opinion cannot be considered reliable and unbiased in this debate. This is unfortunate because it means that we really have no reliable source of information on this topic which makes decision making very difficult.

if we could apply the same standard of accepting a 10 - 20% doubt factor to put the brakes on our current economic policies.

You are missing the point. The economic policies that you rail against are what is in place today. i.e. they are the status quo or the "devil we know". Any alternative that you come up with would be an unknown and therefore extremely risky. The current system has problems but they are not bad enough to justify abandoning them in favour of something else which would have problems that are at least as bad as the current system. Especially when we know from experience that bad economic policies can lead to disaster.

IOW. The uncertainty exists with the economic policies but that uncertainty is manageble. When it comes to climate I have a different proposition: connect action to the data. Over the last 10 years the planet has failed to warm as predicted by the models. Now this could change at any time but it could also mean the models are wrong. We simply cannot know with the data we have now. Given that uncertainty I say we only do things that would make sense even if CO2 is a non-issue. That would include promoting renewables and R&D but would not include bans on coal plants or other sources of energy that we need today. These efforts could be funded with a small carbon tax where the proceeds goto renewables and R&D (i.e. no wealth redistribution programs in disguise). This amount of this carbon tax would go up or down depending on how the temperatures match the model predictions. If the planet has not warmed in another 10 years the tax would be cancelled. If the trend suddenly reverses and it becomes clear that the climate models are right then the tax could be increased accordingly.

[jdobbin]

I started this thread to point out that "climate experts" say that the sun's output only varies by "tenths" of one percent - and they dismiss this as insignificant. These same climate experts however, also say that CO2 is the root of all evil - even though it only makes up only 4 hundreths of one percent of greenhouse gases (380 parts per million).

Are we in one of those cycles with heavier sun output?

[Riverwind]

Are we in one of those cycles with heavier sun output?

Check for yourself: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/more-on-the-sun.html

[jdobbin]

Check for yourself: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/more-on-the-sun.html

Looks like the trend is down. And yet the Goddard Institute reports that 2008 still remains among the warmest on record (despite the cold and snow we see now).

One thing is clear and that is there doesn't seem to be a cooling trend based on the numbers as CNN commentators seems to suggest.

[Riverwind]

You did not read the text associated with the graphic. If you put a pot of water on the stove and turn up the heat the water will heat up. You don't need to keep increasing the heat to cause the water to continue to heat -> it will continue to heat until it reaches a new equilibrium. Similarily, the temperature of the water does not immediately drop once the heat is turned off.

The last 50 years have been a period of unusually high solar activity which could explain the increase in the temperatures. If the sun has a significant influence and this period of low activity continues we would expect the planet to gradually cool over the next 50 years. You would not see a sudden drop.

There is a cooling trend over the last 8 years. If you start the trend in 1999 you will see a slight upward trend but there is a strong downward trend if you start 1998.

8 years is a reasonable starting point for comparisons between predictions and real data because Jan 1, 2001 is the starting date for the latest set of IPCC predictions.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You did not read the text associated with the graphic. If you put a pot of water on the stove and turn up the heat the water will heat up. You don't need to keep increasing the heat to cause the water to continue to heat -> it will continue to heat until it reaches a new equilibrium. Similarily, the temperature of the water does not immediately drop once the heat is turned off.

I read the text and don't dismiss the data. At the same time I also compare it to the Goddard data. If there is a dramatic drop off in temperature in the next years, we'll know the sun data was the strongest influence. However, I still believe the trend is up and the Goddard data appears to confirm that.

In any event, I expect that those that deny global warming will find other things to completely dismiss human involvement.

[Riverwind]

If there is a dramatic drop off in temperature in the next years, we'll know the sun data was the strongest influence.

The IPCC claim is 0.2 degC per decade. The temperatures have declined instead. This means that temperatures do not have to drop to show that the models or wrong. Staying at the current level would prove that.

In any event, I expect that those that deny global warming will find other things to completely dismiss human involvement.

Of course, the global warming cultists would never accept that their hypothesis could be wrong and will likely come up with numerous excuses to avoid accepting reality.

[jdobbin]

The IPCC claim is 0.2 degC per decade. The temperatures have declined instead. This means that temperatures do not have to drop to show that the models or wrong. Staying at the current level would prove that.

And if it goes up, I'm sure that another non-man made explanation will come up.

Of course, the global warming cultists would never accept that their hypothesis could be wrong and will likely come up with numerous excuses to avoid accepting reality.

Of course, the global warming denialists would never accept that man would have anything to do with warming.

[eyeball]

That would make as much sense as determining what to do about senate reform by having a direct vote among senators.

The climate science community is part of the problem.

Okay, scratch the climate scientists then. Let all scientists vote if that's the case.

[noahbody]

And if it goes up, I'm sure that another non-man made explanation will come up.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas. Have one by the way. However, the fact is the model has been proven wrong. If this is wrong, the idea that there is no time for debate is wrong as well.

Of course, the global warming denialists would never accept that man would have anything to do with warming

.

If you can't see the model is wrong, you're the one in denial. It's a simple as that.