Global warming doubters, can you imagine that the IPCC report might be correct?

Question

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
Note, too, that if the IPCC is correct, then it is possible that warming will continue for the next millenium, and that positive feedback of natural greenhouse gasses will render much of the Earth uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I'm not saying this doomsday scenario is likely, I'm saying (along with a majority of climate scientists)
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
that it is possible. If you are certain this cannot happen, what is the basis of your certainty? Is it religious? Is it because someone on the radio told you that this scenario is impossible? Do you actually think that the warning issued by a majority of experts is wrong, for a certainty?

Please, let's avoid bad science, and that includes simple but invalid arguments such as: "Mars is getting warmer, therefore the Earth cannot be getting dangerously warm", or "There are lots of natural cycles."

cambelp2002, you are correct that the CO2 positive feedback/doomsday scenario is little discussed. The IPCC report itself stops 100 years in the future, with a 3 to 6 C increase and a positive derivative. Things get increasingly speculative into the far future, but the typical timescales of ice ages indicate that positive natural CO2 feedback takes a few thousand years. But consider this:
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/11/great_dying_tied_to_global_war.php
A situation where natural release of CO2 from vulcanism may have led to a worldwide average temperature increase of 30 C.

Also, the potential methane hydrate problem:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

No one has really answered this question. Climate experts have issued a clear warning that we *MAY* be putting the Earth into serious danger. This warning is ignored, or denegrated, or disbelieved, but not refuted in any sensible way. The potential damage is so great, that it would be worth almost any amount of economic dislocation to avoid it. It seems to me that the only sane political question is: how do we eliminate fossil fuels, without the undesirable side effects feared by some?

A 30 C average warming, as might occur with a full-blown positive feedback of greenhouse gasses, would make most of the Earth uninhabitable.

Answer 1

So far, all the data that has been provided are the results of computer models. Both sea level rise and temperature increase are well within the reasonable range having come out of an abnormal cold period (Little Ice Age). With a 0.8 degree temperature change in the last 100 years, exactly how much warmer should we be? 0.1? 0.2?

It's not a matter of my certainty that they are wrong. They may be right. They simply have not given me any good reason to believe their conclusion is valid. By your question, it would seem that you are greatly concerned about the potential dangers facing the planet. So, tell me, if the IPCC determined that regardless of their findings, the Earth would face no negative consequences, would you care one way or another what those findings were?

Does it not make you wonder why researchers have been investigating remedies at the same time they have been trying to determine whether the problem has a man-made source? Why would you waste resources investigating solutions when the problem has not been defined? Those of us out in the real world have to deal with folks who will cheat you in a heartbeat, cut corners, pass off expertise or authority in order to gain advantage or power. The IPCC's science just reeks of it.

Answer 2

Thermodynamics disproves the idea of global warming because in order for a system ( any kind or process) to work there must be a thermal reservoir (a constant temperature system) from which energy is added and taken away by heat transfer. However, during these heat exchange processes the temperature of the reservoir must remain constant. If it does not, then by definition it is not a thermal reservoir which means that a net-work would never be accomplished and therefore the Earth is not an independent system.

Now you may say: "Well the Earth is not an independent system because it relies on the Sun to sustain life." This may be true but our current heat exchange processes only distribute heat to the Earth's atmosphere and nothing else. So the Earth's temperature cannot rise. If our heat transfer process exchanged heat with the Outer Space (assuming we could use Outer Space as a reservoir), then space wouldn't get hotter and neither would the Earth.

As a result temperature must remain constant or life will cease to exist and thermodynamics says the temperature of a thermal reservoir must remain constant as well meaning that the Earth cannot have an increase in temperature.

And besides if the Earth is getting hotter then space must be getting hotter and that cannot happen either. So if thermodynamics is wrong meaning that any system which emits heat into the atmosphere does not actually work and only appears to work (cars, stoves, fire, ...etc) then why don't we build a device which sucks heat out of the atmosphere and blow it into space. I mean hot air rises so it should be up there just waiting to leave.

Answer 3

at least this question and most of the answers try to argue science ......now, my understanding is the worst case scenario from the IPCC is 2 degrees F and 8 inches of sea rise.

Is that really a problem?

Now, yes I agree that if the West Antarctic Ice Cap drops into the ocean, we, as in the whole planet is screwed.......

or if the Gulf Stream goes away Europe is in for the Big Chill.

but all the science has been taken to such an extreme......in many cases by extremists with no other agenda than to get in the papers or get another grant....that t is hard to give them any credence.

Answer 4

It use to be the majority opinion of scientist that; the earth was the center of the universe, the world was flat and blood letting was the cure for about every disease known to man.

So why is it that the space probes sent to Mars and the outer planets over the last twenty years show a .5 degree rise in temperature on those planets as well.

If you want to say controlling the amount of carbon dioxide and other green house gases in the atmosphere could be a way to control the climate for the betterment of man, then us skeptics might be more receptive of your argument.

Using the sky is falling argument is a non starter unless you are trying to make money on the green house scare.

Answer 5

I have not heard scientists say that positive feedback of natural greenhouse gasses even COULD render much of the Earth uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Certainly your newscientist.com link does not contain such a statement. That is my main complaint about the global warming hype. It is just scare tactics to get people vote a certain way.

Answer 6

I read the report, have you? It is actually very poor science filled with vague statements and convoluted statistics. But, I suspect that their main conclusion, that the most likely scenario is a 3-4 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures, is pretty close to correct. Of course, I made this same prediction years ago based entirely on a review of ice core data that indicate that past global temperature maximums were (drum role please) 3-4 degrees Celsius higher than current temperatures.

Answer 7

So what is your solution? Why all the focus on CO2? Could it be because of the international Carbon Trade?

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

Examples:

Polluters will have free pass to pollute even more if they reduce natural carbon emissions.

Hospitals will have to buy carbon credits from multinational oil companies just to meet their energy needs.

India has to sell forests to western interests because energy demands exceed resources and by selling their environment they gain carbon credits.

A eucalytus monoculture is threatening the natural environment of Brazil but is continued since it increases carbon credits.

The atmosphere will be privatized for profit!

Question:

Do you global warming alarmists have any idea what your getting us all into?

Answer 8

The scary temperature graph starts at the year 1880. Considered the approximate time we begin emerging from the little ice age.

Answer 9

I can imagine the IPCC being right. However, when 7 of 9 forcings are classified as having a low level of scientific understanding, it is far easier to imagine that they are incorrect.

Answer 10

How exactly will all of the Earth become uninhabitable? When we will still be able to produce electricity to irrigate, air condition and make drinking water?