Global warming - rather like a toothache some argue blind there isn't a problem to delay going to the dentist?

Question

Better to start determinedly on controlling man's greenhouse gas emissions - it will be much more difficult to fix if left till the effects are undeniable (although I feel that there will always be some deniers just as there are commercial fishermen who deny the effects of overfishing until stocks are extinct despite any amount of scientific data). Denyers often say, think for yourself, but the fact of the matter is that this is very complex and extensive science, the best thinking one can do is to read somewhat from reputable, peer reviewed science. See past questions on YA about global warming. The deniers claims such as that it is a 'natural cycle' and 'volcanoes generate more CO2' have all been addressed with properly referenced reputable science on YA .

some-yank your point has been addressed at least twice to my knowledge (it was a small no of scientists nowhere near a consensus and not peer reviewed) - look back on YA as I suggested

CO2 measurement methods I feel are pretty bog standard. I am sure details can be found.

I refer AnswersGalore to http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlXmpfdGooRFMxQJu94HKDpJBgx.?qid=20070211084107AANRgKe

Why can't AnswersGalore imagine we are doing anything significant to the earth's atmosphere. The level of CO2 is in the hundreds of ppm. We are pouring out millions of tonnes every day from burning fossil fuels. Simple arithmetic shows an effect

Yes of course JOHN WALKUP.... my daughter when she was very young and busy with something claimed she did not need to go to the potty and then weed on the carpet when she could delay no longer.

3DM I am not a statistician but if there were basic flaws in the statistical methodology I am sure that there would be statisticians making names for themselves by pulling apart the claims that:
1. The temperature rises are significant and valid indicators.
2. That they are occuring at a high rate in all probability due to man's activities.

You really overplay the effects of being smart yet determined in the way we tackle this problem. It really is not that great a hardship to give up a greatly overpowered and overweight vehicle for something much more efficient. There are many technological fixes in the pipeline such as carbon sequestration. These do not kill or maim and of course have to be tested like all new developments.

Mr Jello - we have three factors here: numbers, reputation and peer review. I personally am a great believer that very little is certain in life but can we afford to ignore this?

amancalledchuda thanks for your consideration of the question. I will comment further tomorrow (it is late here).

amancalledchuda We are not talking about a medicine man a few thousand years ago in relation to modern technological fixes to reducing GHG emissions. Many of the technologies are well understood although requiring development work.

You talk about some people might like it a bit warmer. This does not absolve them of the moral imperative to control their emissions if they are causing threats to the livelyhoods or indeed lives of others.

You talk about what if global warming turns out not to be a problem (unlikely). Regard it as an insurance policy against a far larger possible payout in the future.

As regards your reference I am not sure how well short term weather forecasting modelling principles translate into longer term climate change models.

Terry G CO2 is indeed a heavy gas but go back to your text books and look up diffusion and turbulence.

mick t The idea that many governments around the world could somehow conspire and dictate the results of a large number of researchers is laughable.

Answer 1

The reason people delay going to the dentist is the same as why societies are holding off on major reductions in green house gas emissions.

It is costly and can upset predetermined budgets and it has the potential to hurt.

Answer 2

The peer review system is profoundly flawed because the government controls most of the research money. So any paper that supports the official policy that climate change is man made is passed with only the slightest glance, while a paper that opposes man made global warming is examined in great detail and is rejected for any minor quibble they can raise, it is also very likely that the author will not get funded for any further research.
there are numerous examples of peer reviewed papers that were exposed a fraudulent after publication.

Three examples are

The hockey stick curve

Measuring temperatures in hot spots like the centre of big cities and claiming it is representative of the whole region

Measuring sea temperatures above an active subduction trench where hot magma is close to the surface of the sea bed

Answer 3

First, don't you have to determine whether you have a toothache at all?

In the 150+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age, the Earth has experienced a rise in temperature of 0.7C. How much warming is to be expected after an extended period of cooling? Give me a number. Would you say 2 or 3 tenths of a degree or is that too great? Is that what the so called peer-reviewed science reveals, that our interglacial periods are filled with cooling and constant temperature events, but not warming events?

So, some claim that it is natural that we undergo periods of warming, but that this is happening faster than can be accounted for in nature? When man can not account for something, is it right to assume that the amount that cannot be accounted for is attributable to civilization or is there the possibility of experimental error? We are talking computer models that even the proponents have to admit cannot account for all natural systems (which is why we have "models" and not one cumulative "model")

But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you KNOW you have a toothache and you have even been diagnosed by an "expert" who says he's 90 percent sure that he knows what is causing it, so he sends you to another expert who recommends an experimental bone marrow transplant to enhance your immune system and help your body fight the infection. One of his partners would instead just like to remove that tooth as well as 90% of your remaining teeth and half of your jawbone as a preventative measure. Yet another would like to try an expensive and experimental regimen of chemotherapy...

You see, there is a difference between climatology and climate engineering, just as there is a difference between diagnosing and treating a malady. By using the dental analogy, you have the convenience of centuries of accepted dental practices. But with climate engineering, you have NO experience, no idea as to what the efficacy of any "treatment" will be. And let's not pretend that we are simply talking about asking everybody to conserve and recycle - hundreds of billions of dollars have not been spent thus far just to generate a series of PSAs.

No, we have climatologists, or rather, the bureaucrats speaking for the climatologists, assuming the mantles of economists, industrial experts, sociologists, and the vaporous climate engineers to propose something that has never been tried before and with a sufficient magnitude to affect global climate. This isn't just taking a couple of aspirin - this is major surgery.

Answer 4

I accept fully that our climate is changing. It has always changed, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It has been doing this for millions of years. I cannot believe that what mankind has done over the last 150-200 years has anything but an insignificant effect. There are at least 3 things that are more powerful than anything mankind can produce. 1 Volcanoes. 2. Earthquakes. 3. Meteorite strikes. I could probably add other things such as weather systems, but I am not a scientist. If I were I would be among a group of 'experts' who cannot agree on the causes of climate change. 'Global warming' is just a convenient phrase from which governments take the opportunity to increase taxes.

Answer 5

There is an old Native American train of thought that the Earth is our Mother and The Sun is our Father if you do not look after your Mother you will die.

Global Warming (if it exists) is NOT the fault of you or me.
Our carbon emission cannot travel very far upwards as carbon is a heavy gas. You did physics at school it is basic knowledge.
Don't be hoodwinked by the government, media and scaremongers. Think for yourself.

However, planes flying at 32-35,000 feet are burning gases of carbon into the upper atmosphere but they are NOT included in the emissions equation. Why Not?

Rockets are fired into the upper atmosphere and through our protective ozone layer by American and Russians monthly to build their spacestation and to send probes across the galaxy.
Should we allow this to continue? After all it is our planet too.

Answer 6

First, I just have to start with danny’s nonsense, above, because, as a Global Warming Alarmist, I can guarantee that the asker will conveniently not bother to correct someone’s blatant errors when they happen to be supporting them. Gross hypocrisy, I call it.

Danny says: “half the polar ice melted in less than 50 years” Except, of course, the Artic is no warmer than it was back in the 1930s and the Antarctic is not warming at all, even the IPCC admit that. Then he quotes the usual nonsense about “an increasing number of devastating hurricanes with million dollars damages each, each year” which is also, of course, not true at all.

Anyway, to get back to the question…

Your analogy of a toothache is a poor one. Toothache has been around for as long as mankind, and we have been trying to cure it for just as long. Thus we have had many millennia of trial and error (and, more recently, somewhat better techniques, of course) to come up with a way to resolve the problem. A better version of your analogy would be to take us back a few thousand years to the medicine man who suggests that drilling a hole in your skull will cure your toothache, when in fact, since it was actually caused by your wife punching you on the jaw last night when you came home drunk, simply giving it a few days to heal on its own would do the trick.

Another good analogy, along the same medical lines, would be to liken it to AIDS. How shall we cure that? Kill every single human being on the planet perhaps? You can’t deny that that would cure it, so shall we do it? Or do you think perhaps we should study it for a while longer until we fully understand what’s going on, rather than make knee-jerk draconian decisions to enact a cure that would be worse than the disease (or virus in this case)?

One of my problems with the global warming debate is that I’m far from convinced that we’re going to have a problem. Who made the decision on my behalf that today’s climate is the best we could ever have? What if I *want* it to be a bit warmer? The Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the past and, far from it being a catastrophe, life prospered. It is ice ages that cause problems, resulting in mass extinctions. The same is true today; cold snaps in the winter kill far more people than warm spells in the summer, by an order of magnitude according to one recent report. Furthermore, 2100 is still 92 and-a-bit years away and I have little doubt that the world will be a *very* different place by then. Does anyone really believe we will be driving around is cars powered by fossil fuels by then?

My fear is that we will take these draconian measures to curb global warming, causing hardship for all, only to find that it wasn’t a problem after all. What will the Alarmists like you say then? “Ooops!” simply won’t cover it. Your response will be: “what if we don’t?” Well, we’ve still got plenty of time. Time to get the research completed – and completed properly, too; not in the haphazard, dodgy way it’s been done so far. If the decisions that will be made on the strength of this research will effect billions, then I’d expect this research to be subject to *at least* the level of certainty (i.e. double-blinded research) required of drugs studies when they only effect perhaps a few million. Until this happens, it is far too early to start doing anything drastic on the strength of the current evidence.

In answer to 3DM, who I tend to agree with, you say: “if there were basic flaws in the statistical methodology I am sure that there would be statisticians making names for themselves by pulling apart the claims” Well, actually there are! Here’s the link you need… http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf and here’s the inevitable quote…

“We found enough information to make judgements on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical… We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying it will get colder.”

I’m sure you’ll disagree with this report, after all, what do they know about forecasting, they’re only forecasting experts, while the people who made the forecasts are climate scientists – of course they know better.

Answer 7

More like a malignant tumor: half the polar ice melted in less than 50 years and an increasing number of devastating hurricanes with million dollars damages each, each year, is much more than a toothache.

In China, paramilitary forces are being trained with swimming courses to make them more efficient in floodings.

It is like trying to cure our tumor convincing ourselves that our body will win it as it does with a light flu, that it will go away itself, just a bit of bother for the humid nose.

The interesting point is that, since tumor is not spread we could continue to pretend to be in good health. But it is just a matter of time: those who are alive today probably will live their life just caring for increase of taxes - next generation might not exist at all. Fulminating tumor.



P.S.: if you follow amancalledchuda Jello and others in this area, you notice their intense participation in denying the existence of global warming and the anthropogenic cause.
For the Occam razor, the burden of proof is, in fact, up to the most complex thesis - that is that all the changes we measure and see are fake signals.
Coming back to my metaphor, the worse the diagnosis, the strongest is the resistance for accepting it.

Answer 8

Why do people blindly trust peer review? Mann's hockey stick passed peer review muster only to be found fraudulent by real scientist.

Do you think there are any peer reviewed papers from parapsychologists that will say that there are no living spirits? And is the fact that all parapsychologists believe in ghosts make ghosts real?

Peer review is a very, very low standard. Why do people mistake this as truth?

Answer 9

Yours is a good analogy, but I have a better one. If you've ever had children you'll appreciate it. Ever ask your toddler if his diaper needed to be changed, and had him shake his head "no", while the thing is drooping all the way to the floor with the weight of the poop, and dripping pee in every direction? That's what these guys remind me of.

I know I've already said this "billions and billions" of times, as Carl Sagan would have put it but NO, SCIENTISTS DID NOT PREDICT AN ICE AGE IN THE 1970's.

Do you guys have anything at all in your tool bags except repetition?

Answer 10

The extensive science you refer to when citing your "reputable sources" also said we were heading into another ice age in the mid-70's. Everyone knows that the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles. Do you not find it to be questionable science when figures (such as CO2) are reported without any reference to measurement methodology and calculation basis?

Global warming...a farce of nature.