Are global warming skeptics dooming us to catastrophic climate change?

Question

Earlier I asked a question which refered to an article stating that we're 10 years ahead of schedule in regards to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjY4Q.RQ.wh1LBn_S.aTY34Fxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071009122328AATWIrH

In a prior question, I also discussed the finding that arctic sea ice is melting 3 times faster than climate models predicted.

These scientific findings indicate that we have even less time to address climate change than we initially thought, yet global warming skeptics claim we need 10-20 years more research and data to determine if we need to take action. In the meantime, they're helping delay greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

In both my questions, doubters simply dismissed the data. They failed to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong - that we're accelerating global warming faster than expected.

In refusing to consider they might be wrong, are doubters dooming us to failure?

It seems to me that when there's a scientific consensus that a serious danger is approaching and we can do something to avoid it, and new data indicates that our timeframe to avoid it is decreasing, the smart thing to do is try and avoid it even if you're not certain it's a danger.

Karen - believe it or not, climate scientists HAVE done the calculations. Shocking, isn't it?

I'm not really sure why you think cleaner air and water is relevant to global warming. It's not.

Tomcat - we've been over all this. For starters you're looking at 3-4 years worth of data and half the planet.

Increased snowfall in Antarctica is predicted by climate models.

Land-ocean and tropospheric temperatures continue to trend upwards.

Trying to cherrypick the data is just another way of remaining in denial.

Answer 1

Doom? Don't mistake Yahoo answers for the real world.

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Tomcat asks "Do you deny that atmospheric and ocean temperatures have been cooling since 2003?"

Absolutely. I don't understand your point about the atmospheric data, since the website you listed shows it increasing, long term. Cherrypicking a few years is ridiculous.

The ocean data that showed a tiny cooling (a small fraction of a degree) was admitted to be a mistake by those who first published it.

"all of that 'cooling' was actually due to combination of a faulty pressure reading on a subset of the floats and a switch between differently-biased observing systems"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

Answer 2

So the best arguments so far have been unsubstantiated & irrelevant (3% claim) and inaccurate & many times debunked (800 year lag). That's pretty sad. To address the latter (again!), in the past there has been a lag between temp and CO2 increases. That's because CO2 is not the only cause of global warming. When there's another cause, it can lead to a CO2 increase which will amplify the global warming. However, the fact that CO2 isn't always the primary cause of global warming does not mean that CO2 cannot be the primary cause. That is a logical and scientific fallacy. Any contributor to global warming can be the primary cause under the correct conditions. In this case, humans burning massive amounts of fossil fuels is making CO2 the primary cause. There are then feedbacks such as an increase in atmospheric water vapor which also contribute to global warming as a consequence of our greenhouse gas emission forcings. Sorry I didn't answer your question Trevor, because I can't! Clearly neither can anyone else. I like the "because I don't believe it" answers. Now that's credible!

Answer 3

I don't feel that skeptics are dooming this planet, b/c even if you look at the UN scientist who stated that global warming is more than likely caused by man. The key words in that phrase is MORE THAN LIKELY!!! So basically in the scientific world that means they don't really know. This is a science that takes so much into consideration that it's almost impossible for us know an exact answer until it happens in front of our face. With me being in the middle, I say that b/c I hear good arguments on both sides, I feel that we should cut carbon just to be safe. The only problem with that is the USA will lose alot of money not to mention the world. It's almost impossible for us to cut industry b/c it may lower our economy which is already in shambles at the moment. What if we do cut our carbon output and then we hit an ice age or extreme cooling pattern that is also predicted then we'll be begging for that carbon that we took out of the atmosphere to come back!!! So you see there's so much at stake on both sides that we need to be sure that we are the cause. Everything I've read in yahoo answers even the when the answers are given with a link that provides sources, the sources/articles I read are always in the I'm not sure phase but I think this is what is happening. So you must not take drastic actions until it is a fact and not just an hypothesis!!
Also one more thing, you do know where the temperature readings are taken right? The temperature gages are set up at AIR PORTS!! How the hell can you get accurate readings at a place that is surrounded by concrete!! I read an article stating that if we looked at the satellites that take temperature measurements you won't see much of a change in the temp over the last 40 yrs or so. Also if carbon is to blame how the carbon levels are constantly rising and the temperature has fluctuated over the past century. So there's a lot to consider!! Also as glaciers break away from Antarctica and travel into the ocean they create life, millions of plankton and things of that nature that suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and harbor new life. With that being said it's hard to say if it's not just a natural cause. We also know how well climate models work..lol.. Models are not a hundred percent accurate as I know I work with one all day long!!! One last thing... To all of Al Gore's followers!!! You cannot blame the 2005 Hurricane season on Global Warming!!! If that was the case then 2006 and this years season would have been just as bad but yet it wasn't hmm??? Dumbasses, it was b/c we were in a La Nina pattern in 2005 which creates no upper air wind shear to rip a hurricane to shreds so we had a crap ton and one being Katrina which he uses as leverage!! Any city that is below sea level that gets hit by a hurricane is going to suffer great loss. In 2006 we were in a El Nino period where Hurricanes could be tore up at the top or pushed to curve northward away from the US. So bollocks to Al Gore and his followers!!!!

Answer 4

I think you are right dana1981 - I think it is definitely possible that these skeptics - these ghosts from Pompeii - are causing more harm than good. NOTE: Although Pompeii involved a volcano and not climate change, the premise smacks of being exactly the same - people saw that something ominous was happening and chose to not do anything about it and even denied that anything bad would happen, leading to their eventual demise. Hopefully, the same will not happen to us.

We certainly do have a "window of opportunity" that "mother nature" and "father time" have been kind enough to outline for us. LET US LOOK AT THE FLOW CHART IN THIS CASE: If it is true that worse things await for us, and we do take the proper course of action and bring about positive change, then all the better. If it is somehow false that worse things await for us, but we continue to try and effect positive change in our world, then we also succeed because we have created new technologies, industries, economies, employment and levels of efficiency otherwise not even dreamed of or considered possible. If we try to bring about change for the better and "make the world a better place", but it is to no avail because, as it may turn out, this "cycle or trend" in global warming is either beyond our control and / or, we, as a catylist to global warming have pushed global warming beyond the point of no return - then at least we tried the best we could to slow or reverse the trend - and maybe their will be survivors.

The only scenario where we truly all lose is if we all go on our merry way, "to hell in a handbasket", as it were, give up hope, and don't do a darn thing to try and make living conditions better. Then we all truly deserve whatever awful parallel universes exist out there lying in wait for us to experience.

I also think you are right in implying that it is wrong that we and the planet are conceivably doomed to die a slow and painful death along with and because the skeptics, stock holders, and greedy and polluting factory and company owners who have a vested interest in having industry and the economy move full steam ahead, regardless of how bad it makes living conditions and could conceivably doom the planet to the greenhouse hell of Venus or the permanent ice age hell of Mars - you do not have to pick, it may be chosen for us.

Anyone who is capable of seeing that we can reduce the hazardous effects of unchecked human activity should be allowed to try and do so.

Thankyou

Answer 5

No, of course they’re not.

There is absolutely no conclusive proof whatsoever that we are heading for a catastrophe – unless of course, you’ve invented a time machine recently?

Forecaster Scott Armstrong has offered a bet of $10,000 (for a charity of the winner’s choice) that the temperature change 10 years from now would be closer to zero than what is being predicted. Why do you think this bet has not been taken up? If the alarmists are correct and the science is clear and unequivocal, then this should be easy money, shouldn’t it?

The same thing happened back in 1980 when Paul Ehrlich was predicting catastrophe as a result of diminishing world resources. He was offered a bet by Julian Simon that 5 commodities of Ehrlich’s choice would fall in price by 1990, not rise. Ehrlich went for it, but he was wrong on every single one of his choices. (See… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet ) He apparently even said “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Well, it was a close run thing, but us Brits just about managed to scrape through! Phew!

History shows us time and again, that predictions of the future are almost invariably wrong – no matter how rigorous the science. Take technology as one example. You simply cannot hope to predict what technology we will be using by 2100. Without knowing that, it is utterly hopeless to try and make decisions about the future based on the way we live today – you’re simply projecting “today” into the future, and I absolutely guarantee that, in the future, we won’t be living in the same way we are today.

It’s entirely possible that any action you may want to take would end up being extremely detrimental to mankind for many decades, until a new technology suddenly appears that fixes the problem almost overnight. When I come knocking on your door (figuratively speaking, of course) saying “Oi! I’ve suffered for 30 years unnecessarily, because of you!” what will you say to me?

“Ooops!” simply won’t cover it!

Until we are absolutely sure (something that I doubt we’ll ever be) I would argue that it’s too soon to start doing anything dramatic.

As Tomcat correctly points out, most temperature data sets say there has been no warming for the last 5 years. And yes, you’re quite right, that *is* cherry-picking data (Paul H, please note), *but*, given that some experts are predicting that the Sun will be entering a very quite period over the next 10 or 15 years that *may* cause some cooling, should we wait just a little longer to see what happens?

Let’s think about this dana: you asked a question recently that suggested that GHGs are rising *much* faster than previously thought, but, at the same time, temperatures have stopped going up.

*If* the temperature *does* fall over the next 10 or 15 years – at a time when GHGs are sky-rocketing, but the Sun is getting less active - then won’t that suggest that the Sun has a far greater role than previously thought?

And don’t you think that, just perhaps, we might want to know that before we start spending billions on something that might turn out to be a non-problem after all.

I certainly do.

Answer 6

I am a person who has been looking at the data and have decided that there is a lot of evidence both for and against Global Warming, and evidence for and against the idea that humans are causing it. However if it is in fact a threat (which it very well might be), and if humans are in fact causing it (we might be), I feel like I am already doing what I can to combat it. I use public transportation whenever it is possible, I drive very little, I plant trees, I recycle, I try to conserve energy use in my home. The way I see it, even if it turns out that humans are not causing global warming, I STILL want to breath cleaner air. I STILL want to have forests. I STILL want to protect animal habitats. So even if someone doesn't believe in Global Warming there is still plenty of reason to live as "green" as possible. So I don't think doubters are dooming us. I think money hungry oil companies and politicians are.

Answer 7

Doubters are certainly not helping. But what the world will need to do to combat increased global warming, let alone decrease it is going to be the block to progress. Solutions are plentiful, but what is the target of those who want to increase gas mileage. How large is the support for investment in alternative energy sources(and how long to make a dent in use of fossil fuels). How much discussion is there to help China built more power plants that don't burn coal or at least clean it up.

Everyone agreeing that global warming is a problem is only the bare beginning of the difficulties we face.

Answer 8

I don't think its just the septics Its each and every one of us if its just a little or allot we all do things bringing this on to ourselves . Some do it in bigger ways then others but we do it all the same . You for example drive a new little fuel efficient car to work or shopping for food or pick up the kids after school or what ever. Your still driving and contributing and who knows what energy your job is using . Your refrigerators running your going to heat your home when it gets cold . Its all of us dooming all of us one way or another

I myself have invested in alternative energy with the big hope that its going to be the answer to a renewable all clean energy that's going to save us all . I believe people like me and a thousand others that believe in the small inventor and not the rich auto makers or any other rich organization are the ones " not " dooming us all .

I honestly believe your all blinded by the system .All your scientific fact is blinding all of you to a solution . For crying out loud what good is all your facts and arguing who's fault it is . One side is just as bad as the other . You are not looking for a solution just an argument.

Answer 9

Probably but it's not just the skeptics it's also the ignorant. Even if you could get everyone in America on board what about the third world nations especially China. How are you going to get the Chinese government to stop every mom and pop from throwing another lump of coal onto the fire for heat?

The only way to stop man made warming is to reduce the world population.

Answer 10

No, they are asking you to do what your science teacher in jr high had you do --- test a theory with actual data. When a theory predicts doom and gloom in 5, 10, 15 years but cannot be applied on the past (for where did they get their date to develop the model?). When water vapour is removed from the equations because they are too complex for the model or compute time --- believers should have a problem.

I understand that people do like to do the mathematics but you should. Remember correlation is NOT causation. The air is cleaner now then when my father was alive. The water is cleaner now than 40 years ago.

If you are concern about the environment then demand more nuclear power (no CO2 or CH4) pollution, clean, safe, and scalable. Demand more telecommunting --- why travel to an office to sit in a cube to type -- say home. You can lay many miles of fibre optics cable for the price of one mile of highway or PRT.

Many of the believes in that we are the SOLE cause of the climate warming (30 years ago it was climate cooling) now to always be right it is climate change (what else is climate if it does not change?) 400 years ago people refused to believe that a piece of paper could get you out of hell -- but today they would believe that not drive a car will keep the earth from turning.