Does anyone want to read the most intelligent review of GW I have ever heard?

Question

Go to my question about people being able to stop the changing planet and read the first answer in full. Then come back and tell me your thoughts.

If you have trouble finding the question it's the one just before this one.

Answer 1

Good stuff from an "insider". Nothing to argue with there, but Dana is once again distorting reality:

"1) Just going to point out that the author is a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer..."

-well, duh. Global Warming "science" is based almost entirely on computer modeling. If you are saying that the modelers are clueless, then that's a pretty strong indictment of the AGW viewpoint.

"2) Global dimming is the correct explanation."

-Correct because you say it is, or because there's valid science to back it up? In the wiki article you've reference before on dimming, it only mentions carbon particulate dimming from the 60s-90s. Sulfate dimming had it's least negative effect at the beginning of this cooling in the 1940s. Global dimming is not even a good explanation, much less the correct one.

"3) Of course CO2 didn't cause global warming in the past because there was no source emitting huge amounts of CO2 (as there is today with humans burning fossil fuels). In fact, if CO2 is supposed to lag 800 years behind global warming, why are they rising at the same time now?

In short, this is an argument IN FAVOR of man-made global warming."

- no source emitting a huge source of CO2? What a load of bull. Nature emits 95% of the CO2 that we know of - it may emit even more. Man emitting less than 5% is NOT huge. That percentage is not even enough to cover the statistical error in measuring nature's contribution. Additionally, you do not know that CO2 and temperature are rising together in ice core samples. Your assumption that there is no lag is not founded.

"4)Until then, the smart thing to do is to err on the safe side, because regardless of the results, humans are having some significant impact on global climate change."

Err on the safe side? Kind of like banning DDT. Oh, well, kill 3 million people - they shouldn't have been living in places where malaria is a problem. Starve millions more, because, you know, malnutrition is not that big a deal when there's a minute possibility that we could hurt some wildlife.

Significant impact? That's entirely subjective and not at all supported by your referenced sources.

Answer 2

I'd love to read one. The one you gave wasn't it though. it was just the same rehashed nonsense the contrarians have been spewing for decades. All of it's been completely invalidated by scientists, but these dummies keep insisting on bringing it up over and over again. I'd go through it and debunk each of his arguments for you, but you'd just ignore me if I did, so I won't bother.

If you're really interested in the science behind the theory (which I very much doubt), you can read full refutations of each of his arguments at the site below. RealClimate is a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists, so you can lay to rest any doubts you may have about the site's credibility. You might have to search a bit (as I said, most of the arguments were refuted many years ago, so the articles might be pretty old) but I promise you each of his claims are dealt with there.

http://realclimate.org/

Answer 3

Yes, it’s an interesting piece with some very good points. Certainly food for thought.

To comment on dana1981’s points…

1) That someone isn’t a climate scientist is irrelevant – but something that Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) always claim is important. Anyone of sufficient intelligence can review the scientific work and draw logical conclusions. If that is not the case, then why are any of us talking about it here, since, I would guess, the vast majority of us are not climate scientists either. I know I’m not.

2) Global Dimming is one theory put forward to explain the 40s – 70s cooling period. It has not been positively identified as the “correct explanation”. It has even been suggested that a reduction in Global Dimming may be the cause of much of the recent warming we have experienced. See- http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N24/EDIT.jsp

3) You say: “In short, this is an argument IN FAVOR of man-made global warming.”

No it isn’t! The interesting point is not that, historically, CO2 levels started rising 800+ years after temperature started rising. The interesting point is that temperatures started *falling* again while CO2 *continued to rise* for a further 800+ years. Clearly, during this period, temperature is ignoring the fact that CO2 is rising.

The fact that CO2 is now rising alongside temperature could (and I stress *could*) be completely coincidental. CO2 probably *is* having an effect on temperature, but the suggestion that, because CO2 and temperature are rising together, one *must* be causing the other is absurd.

4) With regards to the Sun, I have been astonished by how little we know about its effects on Earth – especially when you consider that, ultimately, it is the source of almost all of the planet’s warmth. We only really started studying the Sun with Milankovitch back in 1920 and there is still much to learn.

Given how much uncertainty and contradictory evidence there is on the subject of climate change, I believe it is far too early to start taking action. I’m not prepared to “err on the safe side” if that means spending billions on something that may turn out to be a non-problem.

Let’s allow the scientists to finish their work, shall we?

:::EDIT:::

To reply to dana again…

1) Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one then, but, getting back to the specific question at hand, as you point out David Evans *is* a mathematician and therefore the ideal person to do the number crunching required to work on the climate models. Climate scientists should steer clear of that sort of thing, because it is outside of *their* area of expertise. Wouldn’t you agree? (It is for this reason that Michael Mann et al made such a cock-up of their infamous “hockey-stick” graph – they weren’t statisticians. Thus, is it any surprise that the statisticians tore it apart when they got hold of it?)

2) Yes, but the current warming trend began when we emerged from the LIA, and was completely natural – to begin with at least. So, if we are in the midst of a natural warming trend, how much is caused by mankind? “Most of it” I imagine you’d reply. The problem is that issues such as the Sun, cosmic rays, the reduction in global dimming, etc., are ‘muddying the waters’. Would you agree that it is possible that, once all these other factors are fully understood and taken into account, the manmade component of global warming may prove to be minimal? It’s possible, but we just don’t know yet.

3) Oh come on dana. You said:

“In fact, if CO2 is supposed to lag 800 years behind global warming, why are they rising at the same time now? In short, this is an argument IN FAVOR of man-made global warming.”

i.e. the fact that CO2 is rising at the same time as temperature (rather than 800 years behind) suggests man-made global warming.

The only other thing you could be suggesting is simply that the current CO2 rise is not natural, because it’s not 800 years behind temperature. But that’s not an argument in favour of man-made global warming – that’s an argument in favour man-made CO2. And no one disputes man is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the point is entirely moot.

I think what’s happened here is that Bob has stated this argument in a question here - http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As3mqUhOqCMSRvRKNQvKi5d6Oxh.?qid=20070624090516AA3S86q and I think you rather liked it and have quoted it without thinking the logic through. And now you’re trying to wriggle off the hook by accusing me of making a straw man argument. In answer to Bob’s question you stated:

“Now CO2 and global temperature are increasing at the same time, that almost eliminates the possibility that it's not the primary cause of global warming”

No, clearly, you’re implying that because they’re rising at the same time now, this proves CO2 is causing global warming. Thus, I stand by my statement that the claim is absurd for the reasons previously given.

Sorry, I’ve gone on a bit about this one, but it upset me to be accused of using a straw man argument.

Finally you say “Let's listen to the scientists, shall we?” (Good retort!) Unfortunately, I disagree on the grounds that the scientists are plainly jumping the gun. The results of the research are not in yet. Until they are, as I said before, I believe it is too early to start spending billions on something that may turn out to be a non-problem.

Let me qualify that last statement. I’m all for encouraging the public and industry to reduce carbon emissions in what ever way they find acceptable (I myself have spent £3000 installing solar panels on my roof to heat my hot water), but I don’t want to see draconian measures enforced to the detriment of the majority of the population.

Answer 4

"god" (nice name) spams that answer to every global warming question he "answers". I'll go through it if you're interested (which I'm sure you're not). I have in the past, so it's no sweat to repeat myself.

1) Just going to point out that the author is a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, not a climate scientist.

2) His first point:

"Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003."

Global dimming is the correct explanation.

3) His second point:

"The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!"

This has been addressed many times. Of course CO2 didn't cause global warming in the past because there was no source emitting huge amounts of CO2 (as there is today with humans burning fossil fuels). As CO2 is a greenhouse gas of course it can initiate and cause and amplify global warming, depending on when and how it's released. In fact, if CO2 is supposed to lag 800 years behind global warming, why are they rising at the same time now?

In short, this is an argument IN FAVOR of man-made global warming.

4) His final and only relevant point:

"There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays."

This is new science, so there's a lot of debate about it. Svensmark concludes:

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

So it's possible that the human contribution to global warming is less than we currently think, and it's possible that current models are accurate. Either way, humans are still having an impact.

"A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere."

When this experiment is done we'll have a better idea. Until then, the smart thing to do is to err on the safe side, because regardless of the results, humans are having some significant impact on global climate change.

Most of the rest of the review is blabbering about politics and the guy foolishly betting $6000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Not worth wasting time on.

*edit to address chuda below*

1) That someone isn't a climate scientist IS relevant. It means he's no more of an expert than me, for example. It means he hasn't done any scientific research himself. It's completely relevant. Of course he's capable of analyzing the arguments himself, I never suggested otherwise.

2) Considering that the warming trend began far before the 1990s, this is an illogical argument.

3) "the suggestion that, because CO2 and temperature are rising together, one *must* be causing the other is absurd."

I agree, which is why I didn't suggest that. Nice strawman argument.

"Let’s allow the scientists to finish their work, shall we?"

Most scientists think we need to act immediately to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Let's listen to the scientists, shall we?

Answer 5

His "review" of the science is so simplistic it's almost childish.

"CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When trends in temperature and CO2 are compared they kinda fit, therefore CO2 is causing the warming. Tah-da! A major scientific theory!"

"But wait, they don't fit exactly. They only kinda fit, therefore CO2 isn't causing the warming. Tah-da! I've destroyed your theory!"

Man, if that's all it takes to do science, how come I don't have a PhD? I think my 1 year old niece is almost ready to handle this!

Answer 6

The link to it
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak1DE6RPLNmt2nSVe0dhkXcaSxh.?qid=20070625092023AAb87dm

and yes that is the best answer yet!






John,ask this again in a few hours when others get home from work and people in, say, the UK wake up.

But my answer is "peer reviewed" and I'm still -1thumbs.And I worked so hard(sigh)

Answer 7

as Darwin said ...it's not the smartest or strongest that survive but those who can adapt ..

Answer 8

Let me see, we have a miner quoting a computer geek's article about environmental science. Not worth my time to argue over the noise in a statistical analysis.

Answer 9

John:
You of all people should know people don't want reason.......

PS Has Hank Reardon made it to the redoubt yet?

Answer 10

Yeah, right. That's taken almost word for word from some oil company propaganda. You certainly are gullible! lol.