What is some viable proof of Global Warming?

[Virtual ghost]

Throught out years I saw quite a number of internet threads about global warming and they all look pretty much the same. You have the side that really thinks that global warming is true but they lack specific knowledge to prove it and the other side that mostly bases their opinions on news/newspaper arcticles. What in the end ends in a very lousy debate that does not go beyond sensationalism and highschool science.

I have studied the issue for decades and some of the that was on official collage level. Therefore I will describe the problem in a way that that everyone can understand it. English is not my first language so I appologize if I am not perfectly correct in grammar all the time. Also I know that this is quite big for a forum post and therefore I will cut the story into segments. If someone is going to read all of this I strongly suggest that reading goes linearly because otherwise some points can be missed.



1. Do I like the term "Global warming" ? NO.
Global warming is really bad term for our current climate problems because of two reasons. First is that the process can cause negative feedbacks that people who lack the knowledge on the issue will treat as proof against the theory, while the second is much more complex. The second one is that this is not only the story about the temperature. This is also the story about changes in wind patterns, changes in surface under ice/snow, amount of precipitation, changes in precipitation frequency through a year, ratios between snow and rain, migration of species, crop saftey and moisture of soil, floods, epidemies, increase in probability of droughts, changes in a number of sunny days though out a year etc. Therefore the correct term for this is "Climate change" because the problem is much bigger than simply a temperature aspect. If you really want to be a smartass the most correct term for our current state is "Global climate destabilization", which is the consequence of clash between human activities and mechanisms of the Earth to self-regulate and keep everthing as it is. The only problem is that with current trends human activities will win and start a serious chain of events that will end up in global warming. The real surges in temperatures are not in present but in the future if the story continues as it is.


2. Climate change is very very complex problem.
In order to understand Climate change you must mix very large number of disciplines: you need geologists that make field measurements, you need geophysicists specialized in atmosphere to make predictions, you need chemists that will actually to the "math" of what is really going on, you need biologist that will interepret the impact on the all living things, you need experts in food production that will measure impacts on the food production, you need doctors that will track possible epidemies, you need economy experts that will calculate the full impact on the society, you need pysicist and engineers that will try to make new and better energy technology, .... you need trully plany of people. Basically to address the issue you need almost every type of scientist/technitian that exists. Therefore it is impossible to be a real expert on the issue since there is just too much information and everyone can only know the basics and their own field of specialization. What creates very robust and infelexible system that is very easy to attack in modern media formats that are designed for and by people with ADHD.


3. Did we got our framework straight ? No
In the public there is a huge amount of debates about how the climate was 50, 100, 200, 2000, 20 000 .... etc years ago. But do you know what would I do with all of them ? I would throw all of them on a single pile and PISS ON THEM because they are completely IRRELEVANT for our current climate problems. Why ? Because we are burning FOSSIL fuels. What means that we are burning something that was underground for hundereds of millions of years and therefore it is completely irrelevant what was 200, 2500 or 30 million years ago. This is because we are adding NEW carbon atoms into the system and therefore we need to think out of the box if we want that what we are thinking matches what is actually going in reality. Media are constantly talking about all these cycles but that is basically irrelavant for the story, since humans in the name of economic growth are diging out EVERY piece of fossil fules they can find. We are so obssesed with those fuels that we would dig miles deep wells on the ocean sea floor just so that we get what we want. Humans are litterally digging up every fossil fuel they can find in the surface of the Earth and that can/will result with fundamental and irreversable change in how the Earth systems work since the systems are being remade. Once the carbon is out we can't get it back into the ground, especally not without spending additional energy and resources. Humanity is playing with fire and it even does not understand what they are doing.

For example very large percentage of global coal reserves are from Carboniferous period that was from 358 to 298 million of years ago. The priod actually got its name from the fact that there is so much coal in the layers of this age.


4. What even defines climate system ?
In order to talk about changes you first need to understand the basic idea how the climate works and its key mechanisms.

1. Sun - energy of the sun makes life on Earth possible. Throught out geological history the output of the sun did not change much even if the sun itself has a number of cycles that can change its output to some degree.

2. Distance from the Sun - the orbit of the Earth around the sun is not 100% static since various objects can effect Earth through gravity. However this factor is also fairly constant from what is concluded.

3. Tilt of Earth towards the plain of moving - there are signs that this compnent can change somewhat throught out time, but since the time life came on land there was no drastic changes. This efect is responsible for how pronunced the seesons are. We are currently at 23 degrees tilt.

4. Continental drift - as the time goes by continents move around the world and that can effect climate. Ocean water apsorbs the largest amount of sun energy, continents have a medium value, while ice reflects almost all light/energy back into space. Earth gets most of its energy in areas around equator but if it happens that continent comes to the equator that will cool down the planet because continents absorb less energy than water.

5. Planets albedo - Also it is possible that due the tilt towars the plane of moving poles can be long in the dark, what results in creation of an ice caps on the poles. Therefore when ice cap comes at the sun 6 months after it reflects the sun light and cools the planet (but it also melts in the process). Humanity became conscious during one such period that has ice caps but they are by no means set in stone feature of the world.

6. Composition of the atmosphere - this factor determines what is in the atmosphere and how strong the greenhouse effect is. One of the key factors here is also the amount of biological mass on the planet because carbon that is not part of living organism is often in the environmet as some greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gases got their name exacty because they have the efect like greenhouse and allow temperature to be warmer then they would noramlly be.


These are 6 components and first 4 are fairly static and we can't really change them in this technological level. However 5 and 6 can be changed in very short geological time. It is often said that temperatures and carbon dioxide don't perfectly match throught out Earths history and I see no reason why they would. Since carbon dioxide is just a component within a component. However if you kick it into the overdrive as we do there will be observable consequences.


5. Human effect
By now we were sorting out the facts and it is time to start talking about the actual problem. Before industial revolution in the atmosphere there was something like 270 part per million of carbon-dioxide molecules (PPM). Today this number is around 400 PPM and rising, while some other less important geenhouse gases such as methane have even more than doubled in the atmosphere during that time. What makes the change in the 6th component (composition of the amosphere), the change is not catastrophic on itself but we got about extra degree Celsius from that. The only real problem is that this extra degree can effect component number 5 (planets albedo - planets ability to reflect energy into space) Because of even small changes in average temperature the ice will move further up the mountain or further up towards the pole. Once again it is not too big deal but this means that ice that will retreat will leave open ground (continent) or ocean on the sun, however since those surfaces absorb more energy than ice they warm up and then they warm up the air above as well. Once that happens more ice melts and before you know it the situation snowballs out of control.

What is extra problematic in the whole situation is that we don't have a clear means how to reverse this one degree. We are adding new carbon atoms into the system every single day for centuries and we are also removing forrests in order to make room for cities and crops. However the extra aspect of the problem is that one tree can weight tons and take a few square meters of space while wheat, corn or tomatoes have much smaller mass on that same amount of surface. What means that the difference in mass had to go somewhere and fair amount of that are greenhouse gases. What is very problematic since we can't remake our crop fields into forrests because that would kill billions of people.

The biggest problem in the whole story is that with cutting greenhouse emissions you are not trully solving the problem because carbon dioxide has a tendency to stay in the atmosphere, especially now when we decimated most of things that can absorb it. What means that with currect concentration you have ice loss that will speed up since there will be less and less ice. Even without a single car or a factory on the planet the process is on its way and if you coninue to add more we will exponentially speed up the whole thing, especially if the rate of our emissions is increased. I know that arguing about degree or half a degree Celsius sounds silly but it really is not because small changes snowball through decades (or perhaps it is better to say anti-snowball) The extra evidence of this is human body temperature: if it goes up one degree C you don't feel confortable, if it is two you surely need special treatment and if it is more than three you will be half dead. Earth systems are not any different.

In the public you can often see arguments that Earth went through all kinds of things and that this is not different. Wrong.
First: We have build our infrastructure and crops all over the place and therefore we have in the start decimated the environment that often can't even trevel north due to barriers like highways and cities.
Second: The plants (crops) and animals we have on the planet are adapted to the fairly cold climate that ruled the last 2 million years. However since we are diging out all fossil fules we can find we will push everybody out of their comfort zone. (including us)

Extra problematic element is meltng of glaciers: this may look as purely ethical problem but it is actually quite practical one. The thing is that glaciers are water towers of the world. During the warm half of a year they melt and create rivers that water the landscape during the warm summer time. Therefore if they melt completely all summers will turn into droughts and that is bad news for everyone and everything that lives down the river. Melting a galacier is not hard, you just have to make sure that they lose more water than they get ... and the best way for that is general warming of the landscape. If people think that I am BSing them I recommend that they study how majorty of the large rivers in the world start. They can use google Earth for direct confirmation, since most of rivers start in glacers that are in high mountan chains. (Rockies, Alps, Ands, Himalayas etc.) On the other hand you have places with no glaciers such as North Africa and Australia and they are completely dehidrated. I think that everbody saw the picures of melting glaciers so for now I will not post them for now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Continuation


6. Earths self regulation.
However Earth has defensive mechanisms that makes sure that not every change snowballs out of control.

One such mechanism is precipitation. Water in the oceans evapotates and rises into the air, after that the winds carry the water vapor as clouds over the continents where water drops as rain or snow. But since water rises so high in the air it cools in that parts of the atmosphere that is so high above the ground. Therefore when rains falls it lowers the surface tempreature of a landscape. (I think everyone here experienced that effect) However there is a twist: if global temperatures rise so will evaporation from the oceans and that can mean more precipitation and that can actually lower the temperature below average on the continents.

Therefore we are now entering area that is counter-intuitive, messy and something that average people can't get straight. Every time there is a record snowfall (that are pretty common lately) that is in fact prof of warming because increased snowfall means that more water was evaporated and that is because of rise in global temperature. In pure theory it is possible that the whole world is complining about the cooling even if the world is actuallywarming. The trick is that humans live on continents and continents cover only 30 percent of Earth surface and therefore we can have wrong perspective on the overall picture. Therefore climate change is much much better term than global warming, but there is another possible twist and these are wind patterns. In order for clouds to reach the land winds have to take them there and that does not have to be the case at all. Most of rain that falls falls back into the ocean and if rain does not reach the land the land will have sunny weather. What means there will be no cloud cover, no percipitation and atmosphere has more green house gases what will push the temperature above normal. Therefore if we are in the summer and this happens this will push the temperature above any normal value and we will get heat strike. In the case that this happens in Winter we will get Christmas without snow with open blue sky. The water vapour is basically duble agred sword it can storage the energy initelf but if it creates thick clouds it can block sunlight and reflect solar energy back into space. What means that if carbon dioxide rises in concentration it will increase evaporation and that evaporationwill increase that double agred sword effect creating climate chaos. What manifests are increased in weather related preperty damage.

Warming in scientifc terms means "more energy" and more energy leads to the increase in turbulence and speed. Therefore as those two are increasing its get harder to make make correct vision of what exacy will happen. For example in average climates on the northern hemisphere in Fall TV weather man says "the rain will come on that exact day and it will rain for next three days" ... and that is how it is. While in the summer they say there is a possibility of quick passing thunderstorms that may not happen or they will pass northern or southern from some city. The reason for this is that Summer is warmer and therefore atmosphere has more energy and therefore it is chaotic, what makes it hard to make really detailed and correct forecasts.

What leads us to another thing that people don't understand Climate Vs Weather. Climate is long term average of some region and shows what are average temperaters through out the year, in which months there is most rain, is there any snow, are rains slow and methodical or they come as violent storms ... etc. While weather is just a temporary situation at the given location. What is counter intuitive here is the fact that it is impossible to guess exact weather but it is possible to know long term changes. Therefore I will use one of my analogies for this. You sit on a chair next to the rail road and hold radio in your hand. You watch the trains as they pass but you have no idea what is their schedule. One day radio news say "Today it was offically announced that the economy is getting out of recession and that the trade of goods will increase even further". At that point you can be sure that there will be more trains passing by, but none the less you will still not know their exact schedule. Especially since now demand is bigger so there will be more special/emergency trains in order to get the job done. The same is with climate system and rise of carbon dioxide emissions.

Also there is one more machanism that cools the earth and it increases its strength as warming progresses. This is melting to ice caps. It is commonly said that the ice around Antartic ice cap is above average. Both northern and southern ice cap grow and melt as the seasons pass. Northern melts from March to September and the southern one is the opposite of that since on hemispheres the seasons are reversed. Therfore one will always grow and other will shrink at the same time, since one experiences Winter while the other has Summer. However what is impotant are the averages of both ice caps throught out the years because that is the big picture we should pay out attention to. News will report that ice in the Arctic is growing at the rapid rate and they will probaly be correct because that is seasonal change. What is the real question is the Arctic ice cap the same as the one from the 80s for example ? The answer is: No it is not, because the rises in temperatures are causing the cap to melt more in Summer than it freezes back in Winter. What causes reduction in ice mass of the Arctic ice cap.

Here is the evaluation of Artic ice volume that was by done by Polar science center.

Here it is impotant to notice that trends are not linear and that every years does not have to heve less ice than previous ones, what is the consequence of quite a number of factors. However all years during the last years are clearly below any kind of average from a few decades back. What is very impotant because the moment when surface ice comes to 0 that will surely activate the metahne time bomb that is explaned later. If you have a glass with water and ice in it the water will not heat up that fast until there is ice in there, but when ice melts the water will start to warm up much faster. Therefore it is VERY important that we don't push the system over that treshold and record 2012 was only about 4000 cubic kilometers of ice above absolute 0. (ice free Arctic sea)

In the Antarctic and to some degree Greenland as well we can talk about negative feedback. Both of these ice bodies are on the ground above sea water and if they melt the water comes back into the ocean and sea level rises. But that is not the full story, the water that just got melted is still pretty cold and when it comes to ocean it can cool down large surfaces of ocean surface water and then when cold part of the year comes few months later it will be easier to freeze the ocean water. What can lead to maintaining of ocean areas that are frozen in winter or perhaps even incresing of them.

Another cooling effect comes from human activities and that is creation of various dust particles in both fossil fuel burning and other activities. The fact is that when you burn something or do something that involves moving you create dust. However if you create enough dust you can create the whole blankets of dust clouds, as a matter of fact what you see comming out of cars, factories and planes is actually dust since gases are actually invisable to the human eye. What is problematic because the moment we stop with fossil fuel burning we will have some increase in global temperatures since all that dust will no longer block the sunlight. What means that what we have now is not realistic picture and that warming is somewhat masked with this effect. However since we will eventually spend all of the fossil fuels it is better to quit the habit before we throw system out of balance, what will not be fully visable until we stop burning fossil fuels.

All these mechanism can slow down and keep our temperatures somewhat at bay but if we continue to push the issue as we are doing now the odds are very very good that we will brake the system and end up in the world where survival is much harder.


7. Methane time bomb
Methane time bomb is the term that describes the worse case scenario with climate change because expolsion of the bomb is the moment when Climate change will actually turn into Global warming.

On the northern hemisphere there are large almost endless premenently frozen areas that belong to the countries that border Arctic region/sea. In those frozen soils there are large amounts of methane that is over 20 time stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide, its greenhouse efect can change with circumstance therefore the vaues are not hundered percent static. Therefore if we warm the planet just a little bit the ice will start to retreat and all that methane will come out in a snowball manner. What will push the climate into overdrive and that will kills most of creatures on the surface on the Earth. Therefore people must realize that this is about what the real fight is about, we must limit further temperature growth by only a degree or maybe two because that is the only way to prevent runaway warming effect that will give us much much more than just a degree or two increase. Especially since this would mean that ice cap that floats on the Arctic ocean would be gone. Therefore in the summer time then pole comes to none-stop sunlight there will be sea that will absorb the most of energy instead of ice that would reflect it back into space. What will push the issue even beyond the methane problem.

Extra problem is near Arctic sea there is a Greenland ice sheet that is above sea level and this would surelly result in eventual complete melt of the whole sheet and that would cause sea level rise of about 7 meters. What is more than enough to disrupt most of coastal cities around the world. In the Antarctic the sitaution is somewhat better because the continent and its ice are at the pole and surrounded by sea, what creates cold wind current around the continent and therefore that somewhat isolates the continent form the rest of the world. After all this is how the whole thing got frozen in the first place. However there is somewhat of a exception and that is Antarctic peninsula that stretches towards South America. This peninsula sticks out of Antartic for hundereds of miles and therefore it is vulnerable to melt. The peninsula contains enough ice for another 5 meters rise in sea levels.

Here are some examples of the whole methane thing.

And that is pretty much the basic logic behind our current climate troubles, therefore further on I will just addres faulty logic and extra features in this topic I can think of.



8. Nonsense with vulcanoes
I have seen this argument plenty of times and it aways struck me as something that is obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about geography. How many vulcanoes there are in this world that are are active on a daily basis? How many of them are active at least once every 2-3 years ? What are their dimensions ?

On the other hand how many towns with population above 20 000 people there are on this world ? How many cities there are with population above 500 000 that live out of fossil fuels ? Therefore once you do the math it is very obvious why this argument does not stick. Especially when you add all the growing of crops and transporation in to the mix.

Food for thought: Earth at night

Not to mention that many dark areas are just crop fields and places where people don't have electricity.


This argument can even be attacked on a more abstract level. Earth plates move and often one plate subducts over another plate and therefore it sinks into the mantle and melts. After the plate melts they bubbles up to the surface and comes out through vulcanoes to the surface. In the sea there is plenty of organism that form their shells from calcium carbonate and when they die the carbon is trapped in those dead shells that fall to the sea bottom. However when ocean floor subtracts under the continent the ocean floor gets melted and all those carbon atoms come out through vulcanao. However these are all carbon atoms that were inside the system and they are not new ones like those we are adding with fossil fuel burning.
Here is the picture how this works

9. Climate change has a cousin
Yes, climate change has a nasty cousin about media almost never talk about. The process is called "Ocean Acidification". Ocean acidification is what happens when carbon dioxide comes in contact with ocean water and dissolves in it and that results with creation of carbonic acid.
CO2 + H2O ---> H2CO3

However since humans are burning plenty of fossil fuels there is plenty of new carbon dioxide to dissolve in ocean water and this process is pushing the ocean into more acidic state. What greatly effects ecosystems because lifeforms that now live in seas have to deal with more acidic environment and that can greatly effect development of new generations and food chain. What is extra problematic because at least half of the worlds population is highly dependant on sea food in order to have something to eat. Therefore I suggest that everyone interested just googles "Ocean acidification", "Acidification and plankton sheels" or "Decline in the coccolithophores" since this is a story on its own and will not go into details for now. However this basically ends the whole climate debate right way with warming or no warming because current ways of getting energy directly threaten our food supply.



I know that this was quite long read but I wanted to be clear with my point and I have tried to keep this somewhat short since it is possible to go into the subject much deeper. Plus I have tried to make an objective scientific argument that has no politics in it.

 

[erm]

Well let me sum up the points about why a lot of the US right-wing denial is silly, other criticisms are a different issue and often have a lot of legitimacy:

1. Scientific models are not always right. Scientific consensus is not always right.

Applies to all science ever done. A vague, diluted criticism that ignores the point of consensus and models, and doesn't help anything.

2. There's money to made pushing the idea

Again, applies to all science ever done. There's money to made denying the human effects as well, much more money in fact.

3. There's a conspiracy

Once again, just as easy to argue the other way. There's huge motivation for republicans and US right-wing media to deny this as it contradicts their world-view. The government would seemingly have to intervene if it was true, much like it did with train times and whatnot. (I'm not sure the government would be the only way, but that is how it is presented)

4. The data says it's not getting warmer

The data doesn't mean anything without the bigger picture. Such data does not contradict the anthropogenic climate change theory. Short-term data in particular has a high noise to signal ratio and needs a careful methodology to handle.


All that can be said without accepting or denying global warming. I mean it's extremely complex, mostly abstract, can't be predicted with precision and only has long-term consequences. Psychologically it's as hard as a theory can be for a human to accept.

 

[prplchknz]

Well let me sum up the points about why a lot of the US right-wing denial is silly, other criticisms are a different issue and often have a lot of legitimacy:

1. Scientific models are not always right. Scientific consensus is not always right.

Applies to all science ever done. A vague, diluted criticism that ignores the point of consensus and models, and doesn't help anything.

2. There's money to made pushing the idea

Again, applies to all science ever done. There's money to made denying the human effects as well, much more money in fact.

3. There's a conspiracy

Once again, just as easy to argue the other way. There's huge motivation for republicans and US right-wing media to deny this as it contradicts their world-view. The government would seemingly have to intervene if it was true, much like it did with train times and whatnot. (I'm not sure the government would be the only way, but that is how it is presented)

4. The data says it's not getting warmer

The data doesn't mean anything without the bigger picture. Such data does not contradict the anthropogenic climate change theory. Short-term data in particular has a high noise to signal ratio and needs a careful methodology to handle.


All that can be said without accepting or denying global warming. I mean it's extremely complex, mostly abstract, can't be predicted with precision and only has long-term consequences. Psychologically it's as hard as a theory can be for a human to accept.

are you a scientist?

 

[erm]

are you a scientist?

Well you don't need to be to make those arguments. Otherwise it depends who you ask. Some people say I am because of my history, some people say I am not because I don't currently do professional research or haven't done enough (at least not in the realm of this topic).

I don't call myself a scientist (yet), and the point I'd emphasize is that I don't have any specialty in these fields, which is why I'm not making any technical arguments.

 

[erm]

yes or no.the fact you're diverting makes me suspect no but you don't want others to know you're not

Diverting? Pretty sure I answered your question. I like detail but don't want to share personal details.

In case it wasn't clear: I'm not a climate scientist of any sort. All my research has been in Physics (and Maths if that counts, again depends who you ask).

 

[prplchknz]

Diverting? Pretty sure I answered your question. I like detail but don't want to share personal details.

In case it wasn't clear: I'm not a climate scientist of any sort. All my research has been in Physics (and Maths if that counts, again depends who you ask).

I missed the last part, sorry my bad. that's all i wanted to know

 

[Tellenbach]

Applies to all science ever done. A vague, diluted criticism that ignores the point of consensus and models, and doesn't help anything.

I'm glad that you recognize that consensus doesn't equal truth, but some of the posters in this thread don't know this. Some people think that circle jerking is part of the scientific process, like the authors of the 97% consensus study, but it isn't. When you put out such a paper, in essence, making an appeal to authority and touting a logical fallacy, expect others to point out the error.

Again, applies to all science ever done. There's money to made denying the human effects as well, much more money in fact.

When you hide data (Mann), change data (NASA), and make personal attacks (every climate change alarmist politician), that absolutely reeks of pseudoscience.

The data doesn't mean anything without the bigger picture. Such data does not contradict the anthropogenic climate change theory. Short-term data in particular has a high noise to signal ratio and needs a careful methodology to handle.

So what data exists that do support anthropogenic global warming? The Mann papers have been thoroughly discredited; I'd argue that all past temperature reconstructions from measuring tree rings or any other proxy data lack the precision to be of any use. Quite simply: where's the beef?

 

[erm]

I'm glad that you recognize that consensus doesn't equal truth, but some of the posters in this thread don't know this. Some people think that circle jerking is part of the scientific process, like the authors of the 97% consensus study, but it isn't. When you put out such a paper, in essence, making an appeal to authority and touting a logical fallacy, expect others to point out the error.

Why bother listening to any science then? It's all just a consensus based on models. Could all be wrong.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if it's used for deduction. For inductive reasoning appeal to authority is an excellent form of reasoning (when used correctly, like all induction). We would all be pretty dumb if we didn't used appeals to authority as a key part of our day to day reasoning. I know that the 97% figure is very misleading as well, but it's nowhere near as bad as some of the arguments I hear for the other side. (to emphasize, that's NOT me dismissing the skeptic's or even the denier's conclusion, I've heard much more reasonable arguments).

When you hide data (Mann), change data (NASA), and make personal attacks (every climate change alarmist politician), that absolutely reeks of pseudoscience.

No it doesn't reek of pseudoscience, all that's pretty normal for actual science. Every field has that, climate science is far from the worse. Those who deny climate change for the US right-wing's sake have done much worse on all fronts. Oil companies especially.

So what data exists that do support anthropogenic global warming? The Mann papers have been thoroughly discredited; I'd argue that all past temperature reconstructions from measuring tree rings or any other proxy data lack the precision to be of any use. Quite simply: where's the beef?

I'm pretty sure you know where that data exists, and could easily find it. I don't care whether anthropogenic global warming is significant or not, I don't have any solid conclusions, I just hate the crappy arguments. Pretending that there's no data that AGW exists or is significant is just disingenuous at this point.

 

[Kullervo]

Polar bears mating on land ice because the North Pole can't take the weight?

 

[Tellenbach]

Why bother listening to any science then? It's all just a consensus based on models. Could all be wrong.

My threshold for belief is a pragmatic one: does it work? We know antibiotics and vaccines work. We know wireless technology works; we know nuclear power works. We know that climate change models do not work; that's the difference.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if it's used for deduction.

But that's exactly how it's being used by climate change proponents:
1. Scientific consensus is never wrong.
2. We have scientific consensus.
3. Therefore, climate change is real.

No it doesn't reek of pseudoscience, all that's pretty normal for actual science. Every field has that, climate science is far from the worse.

Science should be transparent and data shared openly when requested. Methodology should be transparent as well and climate scientists should welcome peer review by skeptics like Steve McIntyre; that's not the case because climate science is secretive and agenda driven.

Those who deny climate change for the US right-wing's sake have done much worse on all fronts.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptics. If you want the world's governments to spend many trillions of dollars, you should have a strong case.

Pretending that there's no data that AGW exists or is significant is just disingenuous at this point.

Again, burden of proof. Show the data; show the evidence. Answer the basic questions:
1. What percentage of global warming is due to water vapor, methane, natural CO2 and fossil fuel CO2?
2. Why is there no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures?
3. If the 18 year stoppage in warming is just a transient trend, how long do you expect this trend to continue?

 

[erm]

My threshold for belief is a pragmatic one: does it work? We know antibiotics and vaccines work. We know wireless technology works; we know nuclear power works. We know that climate change models do not work; that's the difference.

We know those work because of scientific consensus, with the exception of wireless technology. There's plenty of conspiracies about all of those things, even wireless, and they use the exact same arguments with the same misuse of fallacies and burdens of proof as you are doing (and they're all political about it too). You've got be willfully naive to think climate models are supposed to just 'work'.

If AGW is 100% true, all these agendas and corruptions would still be there. All these problems with the data would still be there. They are not arguments anymore than the corruption and data flaws going the other way are. Science and reality are full of these things.

But that's exactly how it's being used by climate change proponents:
1. Scientific consensus is never wrong.
2. We have scientific consensus.
3. Therefore, climate change is real.

I don't believe you're dumb enough to stand by this. You're willfully denying what climate change proponents are actually saying so you can make them seem ridiculous.

I was going to give you more response, but I saw what you said about ulcers, cancer and saturated fat and realized you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to biology either. You're in it for politics, not the science.

The data is at your finger tips right now. There's no conspiracy taking it away from you.

 

[Tellenbach]

We know those work because of scientific consensus

We know those work because of empirical evidence, because infections got healed and because diseases got wiped out.

You've got be willfully dumb to think climate models are supposed to just 'work'.

If the climate models don't work, why should anyone take their claims about future catastrophes seriously?

You're willfully denying what climate change proponents are actually saying so you can make them seem ridiculous.

I believe my interpretation of their thinking is accurate; when Obama says "it's settled science", he's confirming what I posted above.

You're in it for politics, not the science.

I'm seeking the truth as everyone should. Everything I've said about saturated fats, ulcers, and cancer is correct.

The data is at your finger tips. There's no conspiracy taking it away from you.

Burden of proof isn't on me; I'm not asking for trillions of dollars. Let's see the data. How many polar bears drowned and can we see some autopsy reports? lol

 

[erm]

We know those work because of empirical evidence, because infections got healed and because diseases got wiped out.

Nope, the scientific consensus on those issues is because of empirical evidence, we then act on the science. If you actually performed the scientific empiricism yourself, different story.

Wireless technology is different, because regular day to day empiricism is the proof for what most people use it for.

If the climate models don't work, why should anyone take their claims about future catastrophes seriously?

It's complexity. The odds of effective models working like you say is astronomically low. Global warming inherently makes the situation more complex too, so the if AGW is true the models will "not work" even more. Imagine telling machine learning engineers or astronomers that their noise ratio is too high in their incredibly complex computer models, or that the funding they receive or the money involved if they are successful means we should dismiss their evidence and work.

I believe my interpretation of their thinking is accurate; when Obama says "it's settled science", he's confirming what I posted above.

Go ask Obama if he thinks scientific consensus is always right, and that his politicians based it all on that and none of the technical side.

I'm seeking the truth as everyone should. Everything I've said about saturated fats, ulcers, and cancer is correct.

Utterly false. None of those were a consensus in the first place, and what you've corrected was your own misunderstanding of the science (for example the cholesterol hype was politics, not science). The cancer thing isn't even a correction.

Nutritional science is actually a great parallel. The scientific consensus there is largely ignored by the politics and journalism, and they just assume that studies = science and will argue that science actually leaned towards coffee causing or preventing cancer at any point. Meanwhile the science actually has some pretty simple and well established things to say about lifestyle habits, that are a bit vague but very likely true, without specifically predicting exactly what will happen to you in 10 years based on your habits like the politics against it expects it to.

Burden of proof isn't on me; I'm not asking for trillions of dollars.

The burden of proof is on denial claims at the moment. The burden is never on a person, and the whole point of consensus is to switch the burden of proof. This is the basics of science. Otherwise we'd have to prove antibiotics worked over and over again without a consensus to nail it down, and complex science would be impossible because we'd just be confused as to how all the computer models aren't identical and perfect.

"Trillions of dollars" is called politics. There's no scientific consensus on the politics.

Anyway I'm gonna back out of this now.

 

[Tellenbach]

for example the cholesterol hype was politics, not science

So why do doctors prescribe statins? Are you suggesting that the entire medical community is prescribing statins due to politics?

The cancer thing isn't even a correction.

It will be, give it 5 years or so. Pay close attention to scientific papers on metabolism of cancer cells and specifically on glycolytic inhibitors.

The odds of effective models working like you say is astronomically low. Global warming inherently makes the situation more complex too, so the if AGW is true the models will "not work" even more. Imagine telling machine learning engineers or astronomers that their noise ratio is too high in their incredibly complex computer models, or that the funding they receive or the money involved if they are successful means we should dismiss their evidence and work.

I actually like this response, but I hope you realize that these climate models are almost the entirely of the case for future catastrophic consequences. If the case is so flimsy, then perhaps we shouldn't waste resources until there is more certainty. Anyway, nice chatting with you. Take care.

 

[Amargith]

How is it that nobody's even bothered to answer @Virtualghost 's awesome posts? Is it perhaps too in dept and too hard tackle?

 

[Forever]

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Let's say man made CO2 is the driver behind climate change now (I don't fully accept this yet only because I have to investigate the matter further but if that's where the evidence leads then so be it), then why is massive government spending and enormous transfers of wealth from wealthy to less wealthy countries the solution?

Just had a thought, if humans are the primary cause of climate change then check out these numbers ( just for the U.S. but the debt/GDP ratios span across several influential countries):

17.3 trillion in estimated GDP for 2014, that means there was 17.3 trillion dollars of resource consumption and activity in one year.

• United States - Gross domestic product (GDP) 2020 | Statistic

Think of the toll this takes on the environment. Is this way excessive? Is something supercharging this activity?

You bet'cha!:

Federal debt was 120.6% of GDP in 2014.

Past Debt History with Charts - a [url]www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing[/url]

The conclusion is rather easy to make here. Governments are supercharging the most productive nations in the world by ever increasing debt ( through borrowing and printing) to produce more than they normally would through massive spending. Whats curious is that climate change activists are pandering to entrust the same governments to stop or curb man-made global warming by calling for even more spending ( through borrowing and printing naturally). It's like trusting the fox in the hen house or trusting the largest polluter is going to save the planet only if that polluter has just a little more power.

Debt & Spending are inextricably linked to man made CO2 and other emissions into the environment. I don't really see how one issue can be productively discussed without the other.

Once again, I'm not going to debate the science of how catastrophically man-made CO2 is driving climate change only because I lack the knowledge right now. I'm agnostic as far as that question goes for the time being but I don't really see how big spending governments are the answer when they seem to be more of the problem.

 

[Tellenbach]

From 'Climate Change: The Facts':

"The per capita costs of carbon tzes of this magnitude are considerable. For Australia, with emissions of some 18 tonnes per capita (similar to the US and Canada) a tax of $75 per tonne would cost $1350 per head unless it were able to be imposed on all sources, in which case it would be around$250 per head (US and Canada are comparable). These direct costs of a carbon tax understate the true costs since they exclude the costs that are incorporated in the goods and services we buy."

Notice that climate change alarmists never talk about growing more trees or building more nuclear power plants. The only solutions they'll entertain always ends up raising taxes, growing bureaucracy, more regulations, and less personal liberty. Just say no to Climate Change alarmism.

 

[1487610420]

January 2016 was the hottest January on record.