-
It was decades before Bretz and his theory were finally vindicated - in large part thanks to high altitude aerial photography where the features showed the path of the floodwaters in vivid detail.
Science is the best process we have to describe the world we live in, and it is self-correcting. But sometimes, getting to correct takes a bit longer than it ought to. If someone successfully turns AGW on its head, expect a few decades of wrangling before it all shakes out.
That's a good example and there are numerous others. That is how science works. But the examples like that are the exceptions that prove the rule. Science is self correcting. The difference between these examples and AGW is that they did not have decades of work by thousands of scientists across the globe all confirming the same basic facts: The planet is warming and the evidence is overwhelming that it is due primarily to burning of fossil fuels.
This is not a small obscure area of research or an area with only a few years of research behind it. It is not an area with only a few small groups of researchers working. The implications for the world population, the financial implications, are huge and scale of the research effort has been proportionately large.
The warming of the planet is a measurable phenomenon just like any physical parameter so denying that it is occurring is no different than denying that gravity exists,etc.
But, as I've said before, there can never be 100% certainty that the warming is due to burning of fossil fuels since the controlled experiment is impossible to do. But as is often the case in such things, you get to a point where the evidence is overwhelming enough that the probability of an alternative explanation becomes vanishingly low.
20 years ago it was still a reasonably open question. Not now.
But here's a thought experiment: What if the probability of the warming being due to human activity was only 50%? If someone gave you a revolver with only 3 bullets in it - would you still play Russian roulette with it? It's a rhetorical question but I think it illustrates the insanity of the endless debate that the deniers strive to keep alive (and they're succeeding!)
In any case I'm fatalistic about the topic. As fun as it is to discuss this issue (over and over again
) here among engineers and scientists, in the end it really doesn't matter IMO. If we woke up tomorrow and 100% of the worlds population accepted the validity of the AGW science, we still wouldn't do anything substantial as a society. We're just not wired to address something on this timescale.
-
The warming of the planet is a measurable phenomenon just like any physical parameter so denying that it is occurring is no different than denying that gravity exists,etc.
I'm not denying it, FWIW. Of course the planet is warming, and of course CO2 concentrations are rising at a disturbing pace. I will say that all the hyperbole (both believer and denier, if you will) has really held back meaningfully addressing the problem. Global Warming is like politics, the most profitable path is to divide.
I'll go back to the common ground: that virtually every reasonable person I know, no matter what their opinion is on AGW will tell you that they are concerned with fossil fuel use. Pick an issue: price, availability, environmental consequences, safety (oil trains), national security, etc. Virtually everyone sees that the status quo cannot continue. We disagree on the specific reasons why, but most intelligent people intuitively feel that something is amiss with this behavior of using as much fuel as possible as quickly as possible.
I think the best way to address this common "gut feeling" is to start asking one another: what concessions can we make? How do we change without compromising things like our health, safety, food availability, national security? Baby steps to be sure, but at least we would have some progress.
If each camp of AGW keeps trying to burn one another as witches, that will only increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
-
The warming of the planet is a measurable phenomenon just like any physical parameter so denying that it is occurring is no different than denying that gravity exists,etc.
It's a long stretch between having measurable affect of co2 emission on the temperature to Al Gore and other alarmists' predictions about flooded cities, increased storm activities and dwindling food supply.Indeed. In fact there is world wide fame and fortune and probably a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a convincing new alternative theory.
It must be the holy grail of every climate researcher on the planet. Just as it would be every theoretical physicists dream to prove relatively theory incorrect.
That's like winning the lottery but most of the government funding of global warming related research is much more mundane than that. Academics depends on funding from funding from administrations that have a vast political investment in the conclusions. There are numerous testimonies that the funding is biased:
"Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy,” Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/05/top-mit-scientist-govt-funded-climate-science-promotes-alarmism/
Here is for example a statement from the Whitehouse' site
"In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Clean Power Plan – the first-ever carbon pollution standards for existing power plants that will protect the health of our children and put our nation on the path toward a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector by 2030. Power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, accounting for about one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Power Plan will set standards for carbon pollution from power plants, just as we have set limits on power plant emissions of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot."
If you believe that NASA researches which are part of the administration are free to challenge the claims by their boss or that government agencies that provides the grants don't see in what direction the political wind blows you are naive.
I am optimistic though about the long term future of honest science because it will be obvious in a few tens of years weather the extreme predictions materialized or not and we already have almost 20 years of post prediction data about ocean level, food supply and storm activity.
-
I'm sure there exists bias in some funding sources, but there are many universities and institutions that are funded by private donors, or through their endowments. They would be free to conduct their own research with little fear of losing grant money. Yet, the vast majority of them appear to come to the same basic conclusions. For example, the much maligned Climatic Research Unit lists its recent grant sources here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm
Most of these are grants from research organisations, which are indirectly funded by the UK/EU government and private donations.
Obviously, there are some studies and groups that are funded by the fossil fuel industry: for example, ExxonMobil fund ALEC. Funny thing is, ALEC actually don't deny the existence of climate change/GW, but they do say it could be "potentially beneficial" and the "science is uncertain". Hmm, and don't forget Dr. Willie Soon - over $230,000 from the Koch family! -
Funny thing is, ALEC actually don't deny the existence of climate change/GW, but they do say it could be "potentially beneficial" ...
Funny?
"One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss"
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2013/07/image_1209-climate.jpg
-
It never ceases to amaze me that climate sceptics keep posting links that they clearly haven't read or understood. The very first link to the BBC article debunks the OP in his own post.
I'm not skeptical about the climate. Just skeptical that it's all the fault of us evil humans. That being said I dislike pollution and applaud people who help clean up trash and other stuff, don't pour chemicals into lakes or sewers.
I also admire efficiency. If you can make a car get 30 miles per gallon and also 300hp I think that is great! -
Right, and I've not heard anyone say that there are zero benefits to a warmer climate or higher levels of CO2. The question really is, will the overall effect be beneficial or not? If it's difficult to say either way, is it worth taking the risk, given the possibly serious complications?
-
1,000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards
5,000 ppm is considered safe for an 8 hour work day environment.
50,000 toxic and would make you feel really sick.
100,000 you'll fall unconscious and eventually die.
less than 600 ppm is totally acceptable as normal for humans. -
depends on funding from funding from administrations that have a vast political investment in the conclusions.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how scientific research is funded.
1) For example, here in the US, most funding for climate research is through the NSF (National Science Foundation). The NSF is staffed by career employes that are not political appointees.
2) Grant funding cycles last years, sometimes decades, and do not correspond with election cycles.
3) Research grants are applied for based on proposed areas of study, not proposed results. For example, a researcher might apply for a grant to study the concentrations of CO2 in ice cores from Antarctic ice. The results are unknown at the time of the grant application and funding.
This is how science, works. Data is collected and results either confirm or refute the null hypothesis. The outcome is completely unknown at the time of the grant application. If the results were known ahead of time, it would not be worth studying and would not be funded. You do not get extra money based on the results. As has already been explained, unexpected results attract more funding and notoriety - not results that confirm previous studies.
Even if none of the above was true, climate research confirming AGW has occurred across multiple administrations - the bulk of it under the Bush/Cheney administration.
This whole line of propaganda shows either a complete lack of understanding of how science works or more likely an intentional attempt to create FUD.
The quote you provided has absolutely nothing to do with funding of research.
And the idea that because plant life may do well under conditions of high CO2 means that AGW is not a problem is just as idiotic.
These kinds of FUD spreading efforts may work in other places but fortunately the level of science literacy here on this forum means the intent is transparent. -
1,000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards
5,000 ppm is considered safe for an 8 hour work day environment.
50,000 toxic and would make you feel really sick.
100,000 you'll fall unconscious and eventually die.
less than 600 ppm is totally acceptable as normal for humans.
If you think humans will be around with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 600 ppm then you have no understanding of how ecosystems work. Just because you can put a person in a sealed chamber with 600 ppm CO2 and they won't be harmed doesn't mean the planet's ecosystems can tolerate that.
Humans can also tolerate an atmosphere of 90% O2. Does that mean the planet's ecosystem can? -
I worked at a university as an employee for a medical related research lab. I now how NSF and NIH grants are earned.
Spend the money show results and publish so you can keep on getting funding.
If you don't spend it all this year, next year you'll get less. That was 25 years ago, I bet it has not changed a bit. Plus as an added bonus I get to put my SPIE papers that I contributed on my resume and that impresses employers
-
Spend the money show results and publish so you can keep on getting funding.
Sure, no researcher is going to continue to get funding if they don't publish results. But as has been pointed out many times, it's unexpected results that get the most attention and make it easier to get additional funding in the future. -
Spend the money show results and publish so you can keep on getting funding.
Sure, no researcher is going to continue to get funding if they don't publish results. But as has been pointed out many times, it's unexpected results that get the most attention and make it easier to get additional funding in the future.
Cherry picking researches and hypothesis for funding is an efficient way to influence and politicize science. Claiming that government agencies are agnostic to the conclusions of climate related researches is naive at best.
"Many elements of the Administration’s climate change portfolio are designed to provide incentives for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions domestically to support community-based preparedness and resilience efforts, to ensure that
Federal operations and facilities continue to protect and serve citizens in a changing climate, and to
promote international initiatives focused on concrete actions toward reducing greenhouse gas emission
and enhance climate preparedness globally"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
-
Zapta - that quote has nothing to do with research funding or your unsubstantiated claims of systemic bias.
What is does show is that for you this is all about your political ideology and nothing to do with the science.
You still have shown no evidence to back up your claims and have still not addressed why you think the APS and every other major scientific organization have publicly stated that AGW is real (and these statements precede the Obama adminstration).
-
You still have shown no evidence to back up your claims and have still not addressed why you think the APS and every other major scientific organization have publicly stated that AGW is real (and these statements precede the Obama adminstration).
mtdoc, the main issue is not if man made CO2 emission causes measurable temperature increase. The main issue is what are the implications and if the predictions of the ocean covering cities, reduced food production and significant increase in extreme storms due to increase CO2 emissions my man are true. So far these projections do not agree with the data despite an increase in CO2 emission and the sure benefits of cheap energy on demand and the possible benefits of increased vegetation which is supported by data are ignored. This is a very biased view of reality. Calling this practice science is a disservice to science.
Anyway, I don't think that we will get here for a conclusion so will have to wait a few more years and see of the predictions materialize or not. Things should get clearer over time.
-
Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers? I agree a lot of "climate change" stuff is alarmist, but I also think there is a lot of propaganda from the reactionary fossil-fuel monopolies...
I understand why some might feel confused because the media is full of nonsense science and alarmism, that is true, but that is because journalists don't know science and often get things hopelessly mixed up (and alarmism sells newspapers).
The most complete overview of the science is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ The IPCC reports are written collaboratively by all the worlds leading climate scientist and are vetted by all the worlds governments (all the members of the United Nations).
If you don't wan't to read that much and just want some authoritative confirmation there's also this list on wikipedia: Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing.
One shouldn't believe everything one reads on wikipedia of course, but there should be references one can follow and verify the statements. Here's a one by the AAAS for example:QuoteThe scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement1.pdf
As for the very vocal climate change contrarians: I have spent too many weeks trying to find any sort of data/science that support their claims and have come up empty handed (well not quite true, there was lots and lots of headache inducing bullshit and politically motivated pseudo-science of course.) Anything from "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect" to "global warming is great because plants love CO2".
-
The problem is that statements like this:
As for the very vocal climate change contrarians: I have spent too many weeks trying to find any sort of data/science that support their claims and have come up empty handed (well not quite true, there was lots and lots of headache inducing bullshit and politically motivated pseudo-science of course.) Anything from "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect" to "global warming is great because plants love CO2".
are just not objective and cause doubt to the listener.
The way your whole comment sounds to me is:
blah blah blah blah, accredited.
blah blah blah blah, bullshit.
So what I see is biased, because there is not attempt to discredit other than name calling and alarmist statements.
I'm not saying I'm happy that we might reach 600ppm sooner than later, but the whole finger pointing is just not too helpful to clear things out.
But am I worried? not really since CO2 concentrations indoors surpass that already by a long shot and we spend more time indoors than outdoors.
What can I say, I guess I'll wait for my anti alarmist check that the big corporations send me for defending them
Kidding aside because no one is going to send me a check for anything, I have the comfort to know that nature does self regulate.
-
The problem is that statements like this:
Monksod was asking for data so I provided some links.
[...]
are just not objective and cause doubt to the listener.
I'm not trying to convince anyone really, just being honest about my views. I have formed my opinion after spending way to much time on this, and I know that what I believe doesn't really matter to anyone so the best I can do is provide others with references that I think are credible so that they can convince themselves. One can only lead a horse to water, not make it drink.
As for the final comment, I wanted to point out that I indeed have taken the time to research what many sceptics websites were saying but I never found anything that held up to scrutiny (and that annoys me because they are dishonest). So I can't really post any links in their favour. It's up to anyone on the sceptic side to show evidence for whatever they believe in.Kidding aside because no one is going to send me a check for anything, I have the comfort to know that nature does self regulate.
Nature will self regulate but not with any regard for human life. The earth has been a very different place in the past and there is no reason to believe things won't change again. -
Back in the 70s there was a phase where scientists were greatly concerned human industrial activity might kick the Earth into a permanently locked-in state they named 'snowball Earth'. At the time I believed it, and was dutifully worried. That scare faded away when it became clear the Earth (at that time) was actually warming.
Then much later the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (AGW, meaning 'humans making the planet hotter') concerns become widely discussed. I believed that too, accepted the reasoning, and was dutifully worried.
Then around 2008 I came across this chart.
Source:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Climate and the Carboniferous Period
CO2 is responsible for climate change? Really?
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today."
Links in the chart:
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
I posted the chart image not because I care if you believe it. In fact you shouldn't. I didn't initially. But it should make you go looking for information, and asking some questions about what you think you know.
That's what happened to me. It was obvious the details in that chart were logically incompatible with the entire thesis of AGW. Either the chart was wrong (mistaken or lies), or AGW was mistaken. Or lies. In fact, if there was any factual basis in that chart at all, then the entire AGW wagon had to be a load of concocted lies. That's an inescapable conclusion. Any so-called scientist making claims that current temperature and CO2 variations are dangerous, should have checked the background of Earth's past temp and CO2 levels. This is just not optional.
So who was lying? It was necessary to find out. I don't like being lied to.
I started digging. A while later I'd come to the conclusion 'AGW' was in fact a deliberately concocted fabrication, being pushed for a rather nasty ideological agenda by the originators, and picked up for research money and conformism by the rest of a large crowd. Then the CRU emails leak broke. Revealing the core originators of the AGW thesis at the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, in their actual, blatent conspiracy to corrupt science by falsifying data and repress dissenting researchers. With their motives quite clearly revealed too.
Finding them discussing how they were going to 'hide the medieval warm period' (a very minor, recent blip that doesn't even show up on that chart of long term much wilder swings) was an eye opener.
Anyway, the history is too convoluted to discuss meaningfully here. I posted links earlier in this thread, including a time-ordered series of news and science papers links going back years. And then a few posts later on the same page (2) someone asked "Where can I find information?" Sigh.
In the meantime, for those of you on either side of this issue, here are some questions you should be able to answer, if you actually know this topic. As opposed to just taking a side due of bandwaggon effect, selection bias, system justification, or whatever. It's interesting there doesn't seem to be a 'refusal to accept that large scale conspiracies actually do occur, especially when there's both ideology and billions of dollars involved' in the Wiki list of cognitive biases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases- What is the present day amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, in Parts Per Million (ppm)?
- What is that in percent?
- What was the CO2 proportion in ppm in the year 1800 and 1900, ie around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
Wow, it's rising fast eh? "Like it never did before, unprecedented disaster", right? Keep going... - What was the AVERAGE level of CO2 in the atmosphere, over Earth's geological history?
- What was the highest and lowest level, during the eras since life appeared on Earth?
- How do the CO2 levels at 1900 and 2015 compare to geological minimim, maximum and average?
In doing this research you'll probably have found an 'Earth's CO2 history' graph. You may have some questions arising from that graph, in the context of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Patience... - What is the minimum atmospheric CO2 level at which plants can survive? (Along with Sunlight CO2 is their essential food; you knew that right?)
- How do plants respond to variations of CO2 levels above their survival mimimum? Why? (Hint: Stomata)
- What is the range of atmospheric CO2 over which air-breathing animals (including humans) are comfortable? You'll see values in percent; convert the maximim figure to ppm for comparison with the values of previous questions.
- Does the relative closeness of current CO2 levels to the plant minimum survival level, and that it's only ever been that close once before and for brief periods in Earth's history, say anything to you?
- What were the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Ages, and Maunder Minimums?
- How stable is our Sun's activity? How do we know?
- Are there any long term cyclic variations in the Sun's output? (Hint: the Sun has other outputs than just light and heat.)
- To what extent are causes of the Sun's output level changes and their influences on Earth understood?
Oh boy, that's a deep hole isn't it? I hope you met the gas giant twins in there, negotiated the Heliosphere and cosmic rays maze, and survived your hair-raising chat with Mr Electric Universe. - In the Earth's history of Ice Ages and warmings between them, at what stage are we now?
(And so what would you expect the global average temperature to be doing?) - CO2, water vapor, and various other gasses all have spectrums of absorbtion of light (including in the UV and IR bands.) It's a complex technical topic, but we can simplify: from your own personal daily life experience, can you think of one thing that plays a major role in changing the inflow/outflow of heat from the Earth via the atmosphere?
Hint: what most affects how quickly things cool down at night?
Key question: What are the relative magnitudes of that thermal regulation effect, vs the effect from CO2?
I could keep going, into what global intergovernmental group decided mankind needed a damned scary story to get them to agree to all sorts of things, what year they decided this, and some typical quotes. How that cascaded into the situation we have today.
Or how the actual temp rise observed during the early part of the 20th century was 'amplified' by deliberately false manipulation of both old and recent data records. One instance being the infamous 'hockey stick' graph (from CRU btw.) And then the real rise began to taper off and went flat, for so long (18 years now) that the data distortions required to hide the 'pause' became so extreme they get caught out by anyone actually checking the data. And how this situation became such a problem for the warmists that they had to change the scare story name to 'man-made climate change', since the 'warming' part of AGW probably couldn't be pretended much longer.
-
Kidding aside because no one is going to send me a check for anything, I have the comfort to know that nature does self regulate.
Nature will self regulate but not with any regard for human life. The earth has been a very different place in the past and there is no reason to believe things won't change again.
I didn't say anything to the contrary, yup no regards for human life, decimate, half or exterminate, nature will go on.
One thing I know is that I live indoors most of my life with higher averages than 600ppm of CO2 and that's been the case for a lot of generations.
Again, I'm all for the let's not find out, but the arguments from both sides are not to discredit but reduced to name calling and that's not productive at all for anyone.
What we need are facts not just speculation. If we choose badly well, nature will step in and self correct itself, with our extermination? I doubt that.
Should we curve CO2 emissions? Of course we should. Should we curve overpopulation? of course we should. Can the planet keep on going at our current rate of growth? probably not. What's the answer? no one knows but it will come to us no matter what.
-
As for TerraHertz's comment, well, humans never been on those high level concentrations of CO2. So that is an unknown as well. But one thing is for sure. Life will prevail with or without us, and most likely with us.
-
It's up to anyone on the sceptic side to show evidence for whatever they believe in.
It's not a matter of believing 'in' anything. It's is not a religion. The question weather the prediction of floods, extreme storms and dwindling food sources and other catastrophes match reality.
Now that the science is settled, we need to make sure that nature obeys it. For example, there is still too much grain production in the world, the US is still short on hurricanes, sea level rise is within historic values and New York is still above water.
But I have no doubt the nature will catch up with science and the rise in ocean level will match the latest predictions
-
But I have no doubt the nature will catch up with science and the rise in ocean level will match the latest predictions
As your graph shows the sea level is rising, and the projection according to the IPCC's fifth assessment report (that I linked to to before) is that the global average sea level will most likely rise by a little less than a foot the next 50 years. Problem is that it will continue like that... So science is right on track as far as I can tell?
I have no idea where you got that last graph from but that looks crazy! -
What we need are facts not just speculation. If we choose badly well, nature will step in and self correct itself, with our extermination? I doubt that.
Absolutely. But there are a lot of facts (data) and I linked to some of it. Now we just need to decide what to do about it.
-
What we need are facts not just speculation. If we choose badly well, nature will step in and self correct itself, with our extermination? I doubt that.
Absolutely. But there are a lot of facts (data) and I linked to some of it. Now we just need to decide what to do about it.
Data is not equal to facts, I've been on research and studies only look at the premise they conceive. That doesn't mean the premise is true and not all the relevant data was acquired.
Fact is that humans will be fine with over 600ppm of CO2 as well as the rest of mammals and plants there is no contradiction there at all.
Well maybe 20% will complain about odors indoors but not life threatening and that 20% will adapt or they'll have to live outdoors
Maybe someone should study how those concentrations will affect insects, but there are probably already studies of that and it seems they like that as well. Maybe too much.
But I'll look at your links for any study of CO2 levels and how it affects the planet's species, although I have the feeling they didn't cover that at all.