'Skeptics Guide' To Global Warming...

[Abbax8]

To address something Tony D. said in his above posts, current research on climate change indicates that changes can happen much quicker than previously thought. Ice Core studies show mini periods of cooling and heating,in tens or hundreds of years, not the thousands we learned in science class in the 60's and 70's. There is also indications tht global climate was much more variable in the past and that we have been the beneficiary of what is an unusually long period of climate stability.

Peace

Dennis

[Tony Dismukes]

No action means probably no planet for your kids.

I haven't seen any evidence that inaction might mean "no planet for your kids"

"No planet for your kids" is definitely an overstatement. In all but the most extreme predicted scenarios, humanity is expected to survive. It might be more accurate to say no action may mean starvation, forced migrations, flooding, economic disruption, and other hardships for your kids. Maybe not until they're older, though. The grandkids and great-grandkids may get the worst of it.

[Mandeigh Wells]

Not that it changes my opinion on the issue, but I haven't seen any evidence that inaction might mean "no planet for your kids" (maybe someone has alluded to our great great great grandkids though).

You don't watch the news then? The polar ice caps are not melting, there's no droughts or flooding or extreme weather occurences happening more frequently, the coral reefs are not bleaching, the warmest consecutive days on record have not been broken for the last two years?

alluding to great, great, great grandkids?????? with over 70million tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere daily.....you think we can do that for at least the next three generations.....well good luck.

[Jason T Gatts]

I should have listened to my gut and stayed out of the political threads - oh well.

I didn't say it shouldn't be researched further or that we shouldn't be concerned or that we shouldn't do anything; I was just suggesting that my children having no planet to live on was a bit of an exaggeration. My parent's generation talked about environmental concerns and many were legitimately concerned that my generation would be living in a polluted wasteland - yet I'm not having any trouble breathing.

I do my share to be a good steward of the Earth (as an individual). I'm not a member of any "Save the Planet" group, but I do what I can within reason.

I'm sorry if my environmental concerns lack the sense of urgency that others demonstrate, but I am more concerned with the drug dealer or convicted child molester down the street than I am with some people's predictions of impending world doom.

[Mandeigh Wells]

Jason, I wasn't having a go at you, just in the thought that we can afford to ignore this situation.

I do my share to be a good steward of the Earth (as an individual).

that's all everybody needs to do.

[Jason T Gatts]

I agree. If individuals would do their part it would be much less of a politically heated issue (assuming "individuals" includes powerful political and business leaders).

I'm actually glad that there are people out there doing more than their share because I know that many people are not doing their part at all.

And thanks for clearing it up that you weren't "having a go at" me, I'm still not completely comfortable with forum conversations, it seems that often times I'm missing something, appearing offensive/defensive when not intending to be or "taking things the wrong way". It's amazing how much facial expressions, body language, etc. must play a huge role in daily conversations.

[elder999]

I have also heard that a volcano like Mt. Pinotuba (sp?) in the Phillapines will release more CO2 in one explosion than all of human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If that indeed is the case then we are talking a de minimus effect on nature by human activity. Peace

Dennis

It's simply not true. Volcanos do regularly emit CO2 into the atmosphere, even when they're not erupting. The annual average for CO2 emissions from volcanos, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is 145-250 million tons per year, including submarine volcano activity, and the somewhat wide range accounting for eruptions.

CO2 emissions from human activity, which includes fossil fuel burning and refining, as well as activities like cement production, is a whopping
24 billion tons per year.

In short, human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 than volcanos do, the equivalent of 17,000 volcanos like Kilauea, which releases about 15 million tons a year.

[elder999]

Interesting that comparisons are made from the 1700s to as far back as 650,000 years ago. We have only been burning fossil fuels at any large amounts for maybe 100 years.

Coal is a fossil fuel, one that we've been burning for a long time. The firsts documented mining of coal in North America was 50 tons in 17.Burning wood or peat, and activities like the smelting of metal also release CO2 into the atmosphere. Because of it's isotopic characteristics, as well as where layers of soot, say, are found in the ground, scientists are not only able to track the history of CO2 emissions (including ancient volcanic ones, but can pinpoint when the amount of atmospheric lead or mercury from metal smelting and coal burning began to increase.

[Jason T Gatts]

Not to be nitpicky, but it sounds like you're giving figures for regular volcano emmision when what you quoted specifically states an erupting volcano. So to make your point accurately you're going to need figures of erupting volcanoes.

[Jason T Gatts]

Sorry, I went back and reread your post and it does appear that you do include erupting volcanoes as well, but are there any figures available for an eruptiing volcano comparative to the one in Abbax8's quote.

[Tony Dismukes]

My parent's generation talked about environmental concerns and many were legitimately concerned that my generation would be living in a polluted wasteland - yet I'm not having any trouble breathing.

Just wanted to point out that part of why we're not having trouble breathing is because your parent's generation actually did something about their concerns. The EPA and various environmental laws made a big difference in this country. Without them, we might have the sort of severe pollution problems that China is currently struggling with.

[Jason T Gatts]

Just wanted to point out that part of why we're not having trouble breathing is because your parent's generation actually did something about their concerns. The EPA and various environmental laws made a big difference in this country. Without them, we might have the sort of severe pollution problems that China is currently struggling with.

Fair enough.

Good point, Tony.

[elder999]

The biggest concerns following Pinatubo were SO2, which was huge, and dust. However, based upon the amount of SO2 released, Pinatubo released on the level of 600 million to a billion tons of CO2. Interestingly, in the period prior to its eruption, its CO 2 emissions increased dramatically, with a whopping 42 million tons recorded in the month prior. Pinatubo was not as big as Krakatoa, but much bigger than Mt. St. Helens in terms of emissions and atmospheric effects, and dramatically less than the annual man made contribution....

Again, from the USGS website, here

[Cliff Hargrave]

The pdf file Robert posted sure does debunk most everything, including Gore's movie. If shows a history of climate hysteria and media hype.

[Tony Dismukes]

The pdf file Robert posted sure does debunk most everything, including Gore's movie.

It'll take me a while to work through all the claims Inhofe makes in the pdf, but here are some immediate reactions:

Senator Inhofe claims global warming is a huge hoax. The overwhelming consensus among earth scientists who have studied the subject is that global warming is real, probably man-made, and likely to be a huge problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change) If I have to choose between believing that an entire branch of the scientific community is committing a hoax, or a politician is, I know which one I believe.

Inhofe makes a big deal about media worries of a new ice age back in the 70's. That's a good example of how the mainstream media does a poor job of science reporting. There was never a scientific consensus at the time backing the idea of an impending ice age, merely a few speculative papers. Now there is a scientific consensus, backed by data from a wide variety of sources, supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Inhofe does highlight a number of scientists who disagree with the consensus. It'll take me a while to check each of those out and evaluate their arguments. (This might be a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus) It must be noted, however, that those scientists are in a very small minority.

[Tony Dismukes]

Oh, Inhofe makes a big deal of the letter signed by 60 scientists to the Canadian Prime Minister, suggesting that the threat of global warming is overblown. I found this in reference to that letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ttacks_on_them

As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories are non-scientists, or lack relevant scientific backgrounds. For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. In addition, more than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated a current appointment in a university department or recognized research institute related to climate science. [21]. One of the signatories has recanted, claiming that his signature was obtained through a misleading statement of the letter's intent.[22]

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm still working my way through Inhofe's claims and lists of scientists who oppose the mainstream consensus. I'll just post one more thing, then leave it for the night.

According to Inhofe's claims in the pdf posted by the boss:

On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by
Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004
Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was
100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was
also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.
cfm?party=rep&id=259323
However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of
the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed
the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies
actually opposed that view.

Here's some more information on Mr. Peiser (http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056)

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes. Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus. Peiser originally stated in January, 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science." On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself. (Source: www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/) (Source: www.sciencemag.org/) (Source: www.abc.net.au/)

Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"

On October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." (Source: www.abc.net.au/)

Peiser is NOT a climate scientist

According to an ISI search of publications Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

I should also note that Peiser's critique of Dr. Oreskes' article did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal.

By the way, the site I linked to above has information on some of the other signatories of the letter to the Canadian prime minister. So far, I'm not finding any of them besides Lindzen and Spencer who have published any peer-reviewed research in the field.

[elder999]

I should also note that Peiser's critique of Dr. Oreskes' article did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal.

By the way, the site I linked to above has information on some of the other signatories of the letter to the Canadian prime minister. So far, I'm not finding any of them besides Lindzen and Spencer who have published any peer-reviewed research in the field.

Good job, Tony-you've made the point I was trying to make with my reference to "928 peer reviewed papers," and their concensus...my bad.

[Defined]

Excellent information, especially from Aaron. Thankyou.

Someone in this thread mentioned that it was a political thread. It is not.
I take pity on the people who do not listen to information just because of the person who is giving it to them.

So Al Gore did 'An Inconvenient Truth', who cares. I haven't seen it myself, more because I couldn't justify spending money to find out what I already know. So if you don't believe things such as global warming, think of a better excuse than something along the lines of 'oh, but this politician said it'. I have heard this excuse many times, almost as many as 'oh, but this politician doesn't believe in global warming'. Either way, it's rather annoying.

[Tony Dismukes]

Danielle, you're completely right that the existence and cause of global warming are scientific questions, not political ones. However, there are plenty of political (and scientific, economic, and moral) questions associated with the issue of what to do about global warming.

For example:

Are available resources better spent mitigating or adapting to global warming?

Are critics who claim that reducing carbon emissions enough to stop global warming would be economically crippling correct?

Are those who claim that adapting to the consequences of global warming would be less expensive than drastically reducing carbon emissions correct?

How certain (70%, 90%, 99%?) do we need to be that the consequences of man-made global warming will be devastating before it becomes appropriate to make the drastic economic changes involved in major reduction of carbon emissions?

How certain (70%, 90%, 99%?) do we need to be that the economic consequences of a major reduction of carbon emissions will be devastating in order for that to be a valid excuse for not mitigating global warming?

If analysis shows that wealthy nations will have the resources to sucessfully adapt to the consequences of global warming, while certain poorer nations in vulnerable areas (such as Indonesia) will not, what is the responsibility of the wealthier nations to those more vulnerable ones?

Different strategies for mitigation/adaptation will put the largest burden on different countries. For example, immediate drastic reduction of carbon emissions would be hardest on industrialized nations, while waiting and adapting to the effects of global warming might be roughest on poorer nations. How do we balance these conflicting needs? How do we get everyone who needs to participate in a solution on board, given that the costs will not be evenly distributed?

Is the Kyoto Protocol a useful tool in combatting global warming?

If not, how could it be improved?

If the effects of global warming cause mass migrations from certain geographic areas or nations which are no longer habitable, how do we resettle the refugees without wars or other conflicts? The newly non-habitable areas are likely to be balanced by newly desirable areas, but those desirable areas will probably belong to someone else.

If the wealthy nations opt to devote resources to helping the poorer nations adapt, how can we keep that aid from being skimmed off by corrupt local rulers who then leave their populations in the lurch?

Given the degree of uncertainty as to the nature and severity of global warming effects, how can we maintain the maximum flexibility in preparing to deal with those consequences without falling into the trap of doing nothing and setting aside no resources until it's too late?

Some scientists have proposed various geo-engineering technological solutions for reversing the effects of global warming. (Carbon sequestration, screening out sunlight, etc). Given the inherent uncertainty in any such plan, how desperate should we be before we let someone experiment with the entire global climate? If there are unexpected negative consequences, who will be held responsible?

As you can see, the list of questions with at least some political component goes on and on. Unfortunately, we can't start seriously addressing those issues until we stop politicizing the issue of whether global warming is happening in the first place.