Have you seen the latest global warming alarmism?

Question

This is what happens when a scientific theory is on its death bed. The political forces empowered by it begin to push back and make completely unwarranted and scientifically unsupportable claims.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071118/D8SVRO100.html

A number of peer-reviewed papers were published in 2007 showing that the climate is not as sensitive to climate change as we once thought and that global warming will not be catastrophic. Instead of dealing with the science. they just come out with more claims of coming doom.

It is amusing that the Bush Administration finally began to support global warming theory just as the science indicates it will not be catastrophic.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

How much has sea level risen?
"Sea levels have gone up by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961." Not exactly catastrophic.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071117/D8SVLOQ80.html

The article pretends sea levels could rise dramatically if Greenland ice sheets slide into the ocean. Is this expected to happen soon? Worse case scenario is hundreds of years. That prediction ignores the fact we have a cooling climate phase coming.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2551015520070626

Al Gore has said that he thinks it is appropriate to exaggerate the possible bad affects in order to spur people to action. What do you think of this kind of alarmism?

Mr Jello, thank you for the comment. I have read the interview where Gore said it was appropriate to exaggerate but I did not know Hanson did. Thanks for the info. Can you provide a link?

Bob and Dana, I am not denying temps has warmed in the last 30 years, but I think research shows the warming is less than previously thought. I am not denying that CO2 plays some role in warmer weather, but the Schwartz paper (using the more accurate metric of ocean heat content) shows the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as once thought. This kind of alarmism by the IPCC is completely bogus and designed only to keep the hysteria going. These claims have no basis in science. You both should be as upset by this as I am. After all, it only makes the IPCC look bad. It would be much better for the IPCC if they tried to preserve some semblance of credibility.

Answer 1

Global warming believers like the Reverend Dr. Hansen have admitted to exaggerating global warming claims to "make people more aware" of the "problems" of "global warming".

Truth is these claims are so over the top that there's no way possible any of it could ever happen.

However just like the wild claims of the Y2K bug where people were convinced that planes would just drop from the sky, they're convinced that "global warming" is going to cause another flood like Noah's.

Answer 2

"the Schwartz paper (using the more accurate metric of ocean heat content) shows the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as once thought."

No it doesn't. The 2001 IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity was 0.50 ± 0.25 K/(W m^-2). The 2007 Schwartz estimate is 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m^-2), not hugely different. Note especially that these are both very loose numbers with large uncertainties. It should also be mentioned that there are a lot of different ways to determine this number, and the various methods are (a) all highly uncertain; and (b) seldom in close agreement.

Answer 3

Come on Ron C, when did you turn into Rush Limbaugh? I swear, sometimes you seem like an open-minded skeptic, and other times you seem like a typical global warming denier.

The foremost group of climate scientists in the world warns us that the time is running out to address it, and you simply dismiss their claims as politically motivated and unsupportable.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising faster than all predictions. Arctic sea ice is melting faster than all predictions. The IPCC is telling you exactly what the scientific research concludes, and you're dismissing it offhand because you don't like what it says.

You can't ignore the science just because you don't like its conclusions.

You simply continue to prove my point. You accept the Schwartz paper because it has a conclusion you like. There have been many other studies which have concluded that the climate is far more sensitive than Schwartz's. Why do you think the Schwartz study is more valid? I'm sure for not other reason than the fact that you want it to be so.

Do yourself a favor and read the RealClimate discussion linked by Parrot.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

"In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz's analysis. It's further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2."

Answer 4

Gee, I suggest you call every major world leader and explain how they're being misled. What idiots. They probably only get their scientific information from Al Gore, and don't consult real scientists.

While you're at it, you might do the same for the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and, indeed, EVERY major scientific organization in the world. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that science is "completely unwarranted and scientifically unsupportable".

While you're fixing things, you should explain to all major universities how they need to fire most all of their scientists, because they foolishly say that global warming is real and mostly caused by us. Clearly they're dumb or engaged in a massive conspiracy.

It's a good thing you're smarter than all these guys.

And you disrespect thousands of mainstream scientists as "alarmist"?

"On its' death bed"??? When the actual events are supporting it, and saying that it's moving substantially faster than previously predicted? Do you have any idea how little credibility these "skeptical" arguments have now, because of observable facts? How the "skeptics" have been utterly destroyed by the data?

"Skepticism" is now right up there with "creationism" as unscientific.

For anyone who wants actual science about global warming:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071118/D8SVRO100.html
http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists

And. most authoritative of all (although, given the data since it was written, quite over conservative):

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Of course, you could just believe the pitifully few (and, as a whole, undistinguished) "skeptics" instead.

Ron C - The problem with this theory is the same as with other "skeptics". The actual data shows he's wrong. Realclimate has a sophisticated analysis, pointed to by EnragedParrot. Did you read it? And the fact is that global warming seems to be accelerating faster than previously thought.

In fact there is a substantial body of scientists (larger, and more distinguished than the "skeptics") that believes the IPCC is STILL being too conservative.

"Alarming UN report on climate change is too rosy, many say"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/18/europe/climate.php

"If the IPCC says it you better believe it and then leave room to think it is actually a lot worse than they have said."

Tim Flannery

Answer 5

"... the climate is not as sensitive to climate change as we once thought..."

What does that mean?

Seriously though, have you read Schwartz's paper? And, if you did, did you fully understand it? I doubt it. This is an amazingly technical issue, it's not bloody likely that any non-specialist like you or I will be able to comprehend most of it.

But, assuming you actually do understand it, have you read this article from RealClimate discussing it? If so, what did you think of it?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

Lastly, I find it odd how quickly you accuse the IPCC of fraud without even a scintilla of evidence to support yourself. Show some intellectual integrity, man.

Answer 6

I learned about global warming in the 80s when

I was in HS my Science teacher told us about

it. I remember having to do a report on how we

thought the world was going to be in the

Future, and my report dealt with rising sea

level and how the coastal communities were

going to be under water.

Answer 7

So, scientific theory is on its death bed when you don't agree with the science?

God, is that you?

Answer 8

Ummm, is that true? They could just be trying to ease confusion... the government and scientists lie a lot...