Global Warming, How certain are you?

Adam i somewhat agree with you. There have been numerous conflicting reports relating to Global Warming & Climate Change, some people believe it & some don't. But i think everybody would agree that we, for the past few decades, have been excessively dependent on fossil fuels. Most of us would agree that the use of these fuels are harmful for the atmosphere - to what extent is something that only time can tell.

The important thing is that we must realize that the time to act is now. I think the skeptics of Climate Change would also agree that the use of fossil fuels is bad & we must move over to cleaner fuels.

Yeah, I doubt that anthropological global warming is real, or at least to the extent that most seem to claim, but I am completely open to the possibility that I am wrong. There is just so much data and the system so complex that even the best mathematical models are weak estimates at best.

That's why I can't even imagine someone being certain. Even the models, not to mention the data itself, have margins of error.

The important thing is that we must realize that the time to act is now. I think the skeptics of Climate Change would also agree that the use of fossil fuels is bad & we must move over to cleaner fuels.

I more or less agree. The age of fossil fuels is at its twilight and the sooner we move on the better. I just don't agree with many of the methods in use or proposed. Take the Kyoto agreement for example, everyone was so upset when the US didn't sign it, and yet almost all of the nations that did sign it haven't been following it at all. What good does that really do?

I think we need to take actions that actually have results, not just actions that have good intentions but little results. Now for what actions we do need to take, I'm really not sure yet, but I never claimed I knew everything.

Adam i somewhat agree with you. There have been numerous conflicting reports relating to Global Warming & Climate Change, some people believe it & some don't. But i think everybody would agree that we, for the past few decades, have been excessively dependent on fossil fuels. Most of us would agree that the use of these fuels are harmful for the atmosphere - to what extent is something that only time can tell.

The important thing is that we must realize that the time to act is now. I think the skeptics of Climate Change would also agree that the use of fossil fuels is bad & we must move over to cleaner fuels.

I 100% agree with this statement.

Yay, someone finally replied. Anyone else?

I keep asking this and none of you ever replies.

Gwenny: In reading many of your comments on this site, you seem to be almost excited by the prospect of massive loss of human life, or at best, not at all bothered by it. Now, I should note that I don't see anything like tens of percentages of loss of life as a result of any anthropological climate change. However, I personally consider something even like 0.001% to be a catastrophic tragedy and something we should try and avoid. I simply find your ambivalence unsettling.

What are YOU doing this very moment to stop polluting?

I'll overlook the "this very moment" portion and just focus on what I am doing in general and what others might want to do, as well. I wrote an article over a year ago regarding some very easy and straightforward things that every person can do to reduce carbon emissions and save money. I can't claim to do all of those things every moment of everyday, but certainly our household has put a lot of those practices into place and we've been better off since. More recently, we purchased a hybrid vehicle, I am switching jobs in the New Year to one in which I telecommute and my wife will do the same partially, and I host all my websites on "green" servers (same hosting company as SuperUnspecial, incidentally). Just a few varied things.

In general, it comes down to a simple philosophy: use less energy. You'll save time, money, and the environment. Even if you are concerned with only two of those things, two out of three ain't bad.For all of the other questions posed, which are far too many to respond to in any one comment (not that you or anyone would even care if I went to such trouble), I'll defer you to the links and information provided here , here, and here.

Well, I thought it was a pretty good answer and figured, given your response above, it was probably your rationale as well.

I voted 90%, based on the most the IPCC Fourth Assessment "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I. This represents on of the most peer reviewed written works of science ever produced. The conclusion of that work is that most of the observed increase in global average temperature is very likely (which specifically means >90% probability) due to the observed increase in mandmade greenhouse gases.

For the record I voted 80%. I used the same logic as you and subtracted a little because I don't have 100% confidence in the IPCC. (I have strong confidence, but not complete confidence) I think the people who answer 100% or 0%, yet aren't actual climate researchers have seriously flawed reasoning skills. Climate science isn't like adding 2 + 2, there are lots of variables and lots of unknowns.

Framed: That is a fairly reasonable, if somewhat complicated answer. However:

I think the people who answer 100% or 0%, yet aren't actual climate researchers…

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no one here is a climate researcher. I know of one individual with a meteorology degree on Newsvine, and that's about as close as we have. Anyway, given that, I simply just chose to go with the actual climatologists.

I am not by training a climatologist but I am a physicist and worked as a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville for a decade. I have actually built instruments that measure the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere so I do have a pretty darn good understanding of the physics involved.

I had an office down the hall from Dr. John Christy (the climatologist who's satellite data has debunked many anthropogenic global warming predictions) and watched how he was pilloried for simply presenting the satellite data, good data, with great calibration. It was interesting to watch how that unfolded for him. It was just like what you have done over the last several days Jason as evidence has been presented to you, showing unequivocal data that temperatures were warmer than today for an extended period in Greenland.

What you cannot refute you attack. This is not science, this is belief in the face of science.

Attack? Aren't you the very same guy who complains that James Hansen doesn't know what he's talking about because he's a physicist? I'm just saying: you can't have it both ways.

And Dennis, regardless of what you think has happened over the past few days, I don't attack you. I just restate facts as best as I can. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less. You present a small nugget that you think can collapse a mountain if removed. I simply point out the incompleteness of this and move on. I have zero desire to engage you in this as you and I both know that you're never going to change your mind based on anything I have to say (nor should you, in all honesty, as I'm just re-stating information from those who study the climate for a living). I'm sure we'd get along just fine and given the chance, I'd love to buy you a beer and talk about space exploration. It just seems we keep getting stuck on the same old thing.

At least, we did. I no longer have any desire to try and convince any of the die-hard deniers here on ACC any longer. It's energy that is clearly better spent elsewhere. Oh, sure, you'll occasionally see a comment here or there from me on the topic just to make sure there's a way for Newsvine readers to get 'the other side of the story.' Just don't expect any long discussions.

Jason.

Point out where I complained. I informed. This was in the context of those who said that only climate scientists could weight in on the subject. That is the point. If you are going to give Hansen's words credence then you cannot then not do the same with others.

Why is it that you keep saying that you don't care and then you veer off into personal invective?

What is incomplete about finding wood from trees underneath a glacier or sediment cores that indicate the state of climate. There is no such thing as the killer dataset, it is a combination of data that reinforces each other to build a story about climate.

You may think even in your own mind that you are not attacking and yet you are. There are many "nuggets" that are presented that when put together weave a story that climate is more variable within our present period than what some would like to present. To even use the word "denier" is to try and demonize those who disagree with your position.

I would suggest that you look at what is presented as data rather than have the kneejerk reaction that is typical in these situations. There are many here that can have an intelligent discussion even when disagreeing and it is those that are the hope.

One of the reasons I have objected since the beginning to the misnomer "global warming' is that that is not what is going to happen. Prior evidence from ice cores and the fossil record indicate that interglacial periods are frequently chaotic climate wise. Even if human are contributing to changes, the change is not going to be a clean shot to "hot" but meander around, maybe even with another mini Ice Age. The Earth is chaotic. We do not know what the system will do in response to our continued polluting. The track record of failure to accurately predict the system's response--for instance when environmental scientists predicted it would take as much as a century for the ecosystem near an East Coast paper mill to return to normal and in less than ten years the area was well on it's way back to normal--does not give me much hope that they can predict what the outcome will be now.

AND, as a clear trend in warming fails to materialize, Joe and Joan Public will become disillusioned and popular support for new technologies will dwindle, making it much harder to get research dollars and government support for the changes WE need to make to accommodate the eventual actual changes.

AND, as a clear trend in warming fails to materialize, Joe and Joan Public will become disillusioned and popular support for new technologies will dwindle, making it much harder to get research dollars and government support for the changes WE need to make to accommodate the eventual actual changes.

Gwenny

You are smart! I absolutely agree with your statement there. We MUST get off of oil but these fools in congress as well as the fools such as Gore are going to make it to where our trust in government will fall to a point to where nothing useful can get done.

You get a major yuk yuk award (if it was not so frigging tragic)

Amen Brother!

You should check out my latest seed about fools in congress. They have killed the funding for the ITER fusion effort (breaking an international commitment made by ten nations) and killed the investment tax credit for solar and wind energy, all while increasing the subsidies by tens of billions of dollars for biofuels. This was the dem majority who did this because they had a tantrum because the repubs would not let them increase taxes on the oil companies.

Fools, utter fools.

It is interesting that some folks, no matter what data is presented (1000 year old trees emerging from under retreating glaciers is just one example), that they maintain their belief system. Then they get doubly ticked off when you call them on it. This is why I have spent so much time on this subject this past year when I have zero to financially gain and much to lose by opposing the "consensus" that we are all gonna die!

Oh, NOW you ask.

70-80% convinced that the warming that we are currently experiencing is the result of natural variation, with a very small human caused component, basically associated with land use.

Does this mean that you don't like me anymore?

:)

Yea especially since temps since then have not gone up any and are indeed looking likely to be on a downward trend.

Yep.

that rapid and dangerous global warming is here - and worsening.

That wasn't the question though.

The question wasn't just about global warming, but about anthropogenic global warming. How certain are you that all global warming is caused by human actions, and no other sources?

I witnessed regional climate change in putting out annual NOAA NWS Upper Midwest Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlooks for the Upper Midwest from 1979 to 2005. I knew Upper Midwest climate change was happening before I realized that global warming was occurring. Once I became convinced, in January of 2000, that global warming was behind the regional Upper Midwest climate and hydrologic change I observed was happening in the 1980s and 1990s, I felt it was my duty as a human being to find out if our actions were behind the change. I studied ancient climates which led to major extinctions on Earth in the last 250 million years, and began tracking temperatures, dewpoints and timing of annual spring snowmelt runoff trends. I visited several fossil sites in Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska. I met with carbon monitoring scientists in Boulder and corresponded by email with other climate scientists. There is no longer any uncertainty in my mind that we have begun a rapid change which will eliminate the majority of species on Earth today. The primary culprit is, with no doubt, our greenhouse gas emissions from fuel burning.

And yet he nor anyone else on the internet can post the physical mechanism that gives the confidence for the rise in temperatures related solely to CO2.

The primary culprit is, with no doubt, our greenhouse gas emissions from fuel burning.

Why? You say all these nice things about doing this or doing that, and yet only one of them mentions greenhouse gases, and that is only the monitoring of them. So at best all you have is a correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming. As we all know a correlation is a far thing from a causation.

As we all know a correlation is a far thing from a causation.

Are you trying to claim that the decrease in pirates ISN'T causing climate change?

The most knowledgeable climate modeling scientists

What exactly makes them the most knowledgeable climate modeling scientists? That they agree with you? Is any scientist that questions anthropogenic global warming automatically a least knowledgeable scientist?

Also, you are aware of the inherent flaws and inaccuracies in any mathematical model, right?

the rapid climate warming in recent decades can only be explained by the rapid accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

What then explains the rapid climate cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s when greenhouse gases were also accumulating?

Here is a good website on the subject of relative contributions.

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

The most knowledgeable climate modeling scientists have shown that the rapid climate warming in recent decades can only be explained by the rapid accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

::sigh:: I hope they aren't going to look silly in about a decade.

SuperUnspecial, but do either of those links show a 100% certainty? Remember that was the original issue. Not whether anthropogenic global warming was happening or not, but how can one be 100% certain either way when the system in question is so complex and so many assumptions need to be made just to run the models.

If you want 100% certainty, please consult those who study theology, Adam. There's no such animal in scientific inquiry.

AdipicAcid, that's exactly my point. And yet 17% of those polled, including npat, claimed that they were 100% certain anthropogenic global warming was real, while 23% were completely certain that it was not (or were confused by the question). That 40% of those surveyed who were 100% sure one way or the other about our role in global warming.

Adam, the consensus remains that there is an anthropogenic component to the current warming trend. I understand that this might not agree with your preconceived views, but just as I hold Pamela and company accountable when they ignore the scientific consensus when it doesn't agree with them about GMO crops or cell phone safety, I feel the need to hold you to the same standard.

Could the consensus be wrong? Yes, it could, but it is the best we have right now. What worries me most is that the climate is a chaotic system and the changes that are being injected into it could be moving toward even higher variability: in other words I do not find it at all strange that warming could eventually lead to another Ice Age by redistributing precipitation patterns. Chaotic systems can do very non-intuitive things when pushed out of equilibrium. Witness the economy and the freakish ways it responds to disruptions.

Yes we all know how accurate the consensus is:

Here is just one example of how their sloppy science is torn apart.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2525

Adam, the consensus remains that there is an anthropogenic component to the current warming trend.

This not true. Or we wouldn't keep getting news articles about scientists who don't agree.

Could the consensus be wrong?

Assuming you have consensus, I can think of a number of things that were once held to be totally true. The world is flat. The Universe revolves around the Earth. Dinosaurs were cold blooded.

What worries me most is that the climate is a chaotic system and the changes that are being injected into it could be moving toward even higher variability:

Change is always being introduced into the system . . . volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors and sunspots, to name a few. In previous times the rise of new lifeforms made huge changes, like the cyano-bacteria which destroyed the status quo and changing the probable ending of the Earth as a giant snowball to where we have a huge, diverse eco-system.

in other words I do not find it at all strange that warming could eventually lead to another Ice Age by redistributing precipitation patterns.

Especially since it has done that before. And which is what some of the scientists who don't join the consensus have said for at least a decade. And which is why we will probably lose the interest of Joe and Joan Public when the hysterics of the Global Warming cult proves wrong and their dire message of "record"--ie within the historic scope of our puny, human society--heat and ocean levels proves wrong in the short term. I mean, try to convince N Californians, who are living through another cold winter after an unusually cool summer, that the world is getting hotter.

The message we NEEDED to get out to folks was that we are finishing up a cycle of climate change . . .we are moving on to the next. Historically this has been chaotic, sometimes impacting bio-diversity is catastrophic ways what resulted in massive die offs. We can't be lulled into a false sense of security because the last 10k years have been so stable and mild. We must be prepared. We must minimize our foot print and decrease the impact humans have, especially since this would just be good planetary citizenship, while we create plans to protect our food supply and people.

But it's not just about CO2 . . .it's also about how we spread out with concrete and glass over huge swathes of the continents, creating heat islands that seriously increase the local temperatures and the temperature swings every day. It's how we have export temperate, wet climate landscaping to places that aren't used to the level of moisture we pump into the air to support Kentucky Bluegrass in the desert, disrupting those locales. It's also about how there are over 6 billion of us and we breath, eat, defecate and procreate, all of which uses resources and gives off carbon dioxide and heat as a by product while our greedy consumer lifestyles eat up more and more of irreplaceable raw materials.

In the short term, folks are afraid. A few summers of overly hyped high temperatures and they are willing to support some kinds of research. Some are even willing to make minor lifestyle changes. But when a clear warming trend fails to materialize . . .when large areas of the US actually continue to suffer record cold and snow, they are going to think they were lied to. Eventually the sound bites will succumb to the onslaught of what they are experiencing and, disillusioned, they will cease to make even the minuscule changes they were making.

The good news is I don't think humans can be totally wiped out at this time. We are too resilient and resourceful. Pockets of humans are already preparing for the potential disaster, with communities that are either totally off the grid or prepared to go off the grid. We survived the last huge climate change, we will survive this one. I just hope we evolve better than we did the last one. We don't need anything worse than the humans who evolved into the aggressive, belligerent Aryans who are behind our impact now.

This not true. Or we wouldn't keep getting news articles about scientists who don't agree.

Consensus in no way implies unanimity. Would you say there is no consensus on evolution as well?

Consensus in no way implies unanimity. Would you say there is no consensus on evolution as well?

Consensus a general agreement among the members of a given group or community.

I would say that, as a rule, most scientists consider a fossil record stretching back 3.5 billion years to be adequate evidence to support one of several "theories" of evolution. Within that framework there is much dissent about particulars. So, if what you are asking is do most scientists believe that there is some mechanism by which some version of natural selection seems to have allowed creatures to become increasingly complex, I would say "yes" but only in the most broad sense.

Now, I would also agree that there is a consensus among most scientists that the climate is changing. Where the consensus falls apart is when you try to say they all believe humans are causing it, since the same fossil record stretching back 3.5 billion years show many cycles of climate change . . .cycles within cycles. With "true" humans only going back a million years, that would argue there are natural mechanisms in place to cause the changes . . from sun cycles to earth cycles and all sorts of extraordinary events like meteors.

And, as I've said time and again, I think evidence supports a changing climate. Ice cores and new evidence from ocean floors show we are finally getting back to how warm it was 7k years ago. I do not doubt that human activity has impacted climate change. Where we differ is about HOW humans are doing it and my loathing of the Global Warming cult centers on their irrational obsession with just one aspect of an extremely complex issue. F**K CO2! LOL

Seriously, I wish I could just accept the nonsense they spew. Because it would be such good grounds to eliminate the real sources of the most of the human produced CO2 . . . ground all airplanes, stop all wars, cease ocean going vessels. Eliminate the majority of import/export, limiting it to absolute necessities that cannot be produced locally. Seriously curtail population growth.

Because it's so much easier than actually taking responsibility for all the ways we pollute and destroy the planet. Don't make us clean up our act, absolve us of guilt if we "buy green" and drive the right kind of car. Don't make us re-evaluate the design of our cities, our economic system or our greed, let us feel better because we saved 2 gallons of gas this week. And we'll just merrily go on expanding the amount of the Earth's surface we have blacktopped and continue to destroy eco-systems to grow food that will be shipped all over the world in fuel guzzling ships and build our single family homes only partially filled with lonely dysfunctional people.

::sigh::

Here is one way that consensus is achieved, in the face of truth.

What I think you are observing in your last paragraph is more a function of yuppie-dom than environmentally conscious people. Whole Foods and that part of yuppie culture is more about expressing wealth than looking inwards and reevaluating our lives.

As far as I can tell, most environmentally conscious people are a sub-set of yuppie-dom. LOL

As for the things you talk about that are happening, those are the culmination of decades of activism by hippies and tree huggers, an evolution of the Back to the Earth movement in the 1970s and 1980s. (You should see my bookshelf . . .dozens of books about solar, improving insulation, decreasing your personal energy use and growing your own food. Most of them from the 1980s.) It has nothing to do with the current Global Warming insanity and, for the most part, the GW cultists aren't interested in those sorts of changes. They are obsessed with CO2. And that is my complaint with them, their narrow focus and their misguided information about what is likely to happen . . and how that is going to impact public opinion.

Nevermind . . .I'm going to declare moratorium on this topic. . maybe I'll take another break from Newsvine. None of you choose to understand and, honestly, it doesn't matter. I can wait ten years to be right again.

Kilamanjaro's glaciers are melting and will be gone by the end of the next decade. Those glaciers were thousands of years old. The snows of Kilamanjaro have been a part of african folklore forever.

It has been shown time and time again that the melting has nothing to do with global warming.

Is global warming real? The Ross ice shelf, over 1000 ft thick and covering thousands of square miles melted, it's been there for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years and it melted.

The Ross Ice shelf is still there.

Nasa has recorded changes in ocean currents essential to our current weather pattern, tropical diseases are spreading to the north and south of the tropics.

Yes and those changes are indicating cooler climates not warmer ones as the La Nina phenom is associated with cooling not warming.

If our current warm period is not from human causes then there is not a damn thing we can do about it one way or another.

Don't you just hate when people dissect every line from your post as if they are the all knowing being of the universe?

Yes, those people who think that they know everything are mighty annoying to those of us who do!

:)

Yes, just like those scientists 40 years ago indicated that the population would be over 10 billion today, and that 18 essential metals would be completely depleted by now. Computer models are no better than the input data (GIGO).

SU

As you can see, arguing with some people is a futile exercise.

As is with you.

npat

At least I have data to back up what I say.

as do we

Steve McIntyre at www.climateaudit.org has a challenge for anyone to show a paper, a book, or anything else that specifies how the level of CO2 put into the environment by man results in a 2.5 degree C increase in temperature.

Can any of you answer that challenge?

Oh I just love this one!!

While scientists have essentially dismissed McIntyre's research, professional societies have gone after Rep. Barton and his letters. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the AGU, for example, have protested Barton's intrusion into the scientific process. Mann provided an 11-page point-by-point refutation of every issue raised by Barton.

I guess that is why the Ad Hoc Committee on the conflict between Mike Mann and Steve and Ross came up with this jewel:

Principal component analysis is a method often used for reducing multidimensional
datasets to lower dimensions for analysis. In this context, dimensions refer to the number
of distinct variables. The time series proxy data involved are transformed into their
principal components, where the first principal component is intended to explain most of
the variation present in the variables. Each subsequent principal component explains less
and less of the variation. In the methodology of MBH98/99, the first principal component
is used in the temperature reconstruction, and also has the highest explained variance.
This method is intended for dimension reduction. In most datasets, the first principal
component should be the least smooth (because of the higher variance). However, in
MBH98, MBH99, the proxy data are incorrectly centered, which inflates the variance of
certain proxies and selectively chooses those decentered proxies as the temperature
reconstruction.

This is from an independent group chartered by the National Research Council.