Climate Change: Are Humans to Blame?

[SkinWalker]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has just reconvened for another long evening, having spent the day debating changes to mammoth climate-change legislation, still without reaching the bill's halfway point.

Or so says yesterday's Washington Post, served up fresh on my Kindle -House Panel Continues Debate on Climate-Change Bill.

 

Congress also heard from Climate Change skeptics, which are a distinct but vocal minority. With such an overwhelming consensus among scientists working in fields of biology, climatology, geology, meteorology, etc., all stating that climate change is a real threat, that the average temperatures are rising globally and that Arctic ice and the world's glaciers are melting, and that humans are part of the problem -can there really be any skeptics that get taken seriously?

 

To be honest, I'm not an expert on climate change and haven't followed it more than a moderate degree. Assuming others participate, and using this thread as a vehicle for education, I intend to evaluate the issue objectively. I truly have no bias one side or the other. If the data are sufficient to sway one way or the other, thats where provisionally draw my conclusions.

 

If others have evidenced based arguments for one side of this or the other, please feel free to post them here. A google search for "climate change" yielded this image from Wikipedia, which is a graph based on the data compiled by Meehl et al. (2004). It correlates both modeled and observed temperature changes with the fluctuations in greenhouse gases.

 

 

In addition to the strong correlations of their data, there's the added support for the validity of climate modeling to accurately reflect observed temperatures, which seems to refute the common argument by global warming skeptics that climate modeling is inaccurate and too flawed to rely on.

 

Reference:

 

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727.

[Achilles]

I haven't visited the site in a while, but I used to enjoy the spirited discussion found here.

 

And I posted this once upon a time, but I can't remember whether it was here or Kavar's.

 

[Tommycat]

When some of the skeptics happen to be the ones whose papers were used, I'd say that yes you should pay attention to some of what they say.

 

And if you want to base it on number of followers, That's almost like saying, There must be a god because so many people believe in one.

[SkinWalker]

Personally, I'm not basing anything on anything else, particularly not the number of followers. I'm asking for premises and supporting information for both sides, assuming that the topic is one others are willing to discuss.

 

With regard to the "skeptics [...] whose papers were used," would you care to share those citations? I think they'd be interesting to read and see the counter position.

[EnderWiggin]

And I posted this once upon a time, but I can't remember whether it was here or Kavar's.

 

 

Wow. I hadn't seen that before - thanks for sharing it again, Achilles. It's brilliant and very effective due to its simplicity.

 

Definitely something to bookmark

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

Couldn't find the original article(which was regarding the IPCC) However...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

[Achilles]

Wow. I hadn't seen that before - thanks for sharing it again, Achilles. It's brilliant and very effective due to its simplicity.

 

Definitely something to bookmark

 

_EW_

You're welcome

 

Regardless of whether climate change is a) an actual phenomenon and/or b) man-made, conservation, clean energy, etc all make sense. I hope that viewers will take that away, if nothing else.

[SkinWalker]

Couldn't find the original article(which was regarding the IPCC) However...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

 

That's really strange... it's a .gov site but has the style and format of one of those blogs Garfield used to link. Still, I'll get a chance to look it over later. Thanks for the link.

[Totenkopf]

....With such an overwhelming consensus among scientists working in fields of biology, climatology, geology, meteorology, etc., all stating that climate change is a real threat...?

 

Sources? It's easy to make any claim, but if we're to accept this "argument from authority", I'm kinda curious to know how many cooks are stirring that brew. The problem with the global warming argument is that there's been a push to avoid using the label "global warming" and substitute supposedly less polarizing ones like global climate change. Nothing like an innocuous sounding euphemism. Seems like a lot of the mmgw arguments are based on..."but what if....."

 

That's really strange... it's a .gov site but has the style and format of one of those blogs Garfield used to link. Still, I'll get a chance to look it over later. Thanks for the link.

 

Is that supposed to make everyone think you're really open minded about this thread?

[Tommycat]

While I disagree on the level of man's involvement in actual climate change, I think we do enough damage to the environment. We dump tonnes of trash, gallons of chemicals, and use a metric eff-tonne of non-renewable resources. Responsible environmentalism works on fixing those things, not attempting to change some percieved threat that may or may not be related to man's involvement.

[Totenkopf]

I can agree with that. Balancing man's need to improve civilization with trying not to destroy his environment ain't always an easy thing. However, we shouldn't rush headlong into ginning up a crisis to advance agendas either. Part of the problem with the global warming crowd is their knee jerk embracing of polemics to scare people. I guess they figure that like a stopped clock they'll be right at least once (someday).

[Tommycat]

The problem is that many of their policies end up being made into laws by people who don't look much farther than votes. So neo-scientific mumbo-jumbo gets re-interpreted by non-scientists into some form of law...

 

Oh and I don't pretend that that senate site is unbiassed. It's the minority blog. However, it gives you some idea of who the so called fringe scientists are.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist

knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps

Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda

Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu

University in Japan.

 

Also of note, notice how they seem to be backing off the Global warming talk since the temps have actually gone DOWN these last few years. Oh wait... now it's Global Climate Change, since warming was easy enough to disprove. The old hockey stick graph makes it's rounds again.

[SkinWalker]

....With such an overwhelming consensus among scientists working in fields of biology, climatology, geology, meteorology, etc., all stating that climate change is a real threat...?

Sources? It's easy to make any claim, but if we're to accept this "argument from authority", I'm kinda curious to know how many cooks are stirring that brew.

Sources for a consensus? I thought this was already common knowledge, but okay. Try van den Hove (2003); Oreskes (2004); and Kintishch, Eli (2009).

 

I'm not asserting the consensus is right, only that there is a consensus. To me, the data are more important.

 

The problem with the global warming argument is that there's been a push to avoid using the label "global warming" and substitute supposedly less polarizing ones like global climate change.

 

From a scientific perspective, I see this as a more accurate term and as a strength of science that it's willing to accept conclusions provisionally. You should be more worried if the scientific consensus was unwilling to change or adapt with better data and understanding.

 

Is that supposed to make everyone think you're really open minded about this thread?

 

Yes. I am. I truly don't know what to think since I haven't examined the data. I'm looking at more and more in peer-reviewed journals and, so far, it all appears to be in support of anthropogenic climate change. I'm actively looking in the major peer-reviewed journals for specific studies that show otherwise as I type this.

 

I would, however, point out that, given your rhetoric above which irrationally criticizes the provisional nature of science, your own bias is clear. Since it is, I'm curious: what motivates a bias against the premise that climate change is happening or is accelerated by human activity?

 

Edit: I took a look at the link above. I see why it looks like Garfy's blog links as well: it's a blog run by Senator Inhofe and only has the .gov domain because of his position in the Senate. It isn't actually representative of the U.S. government nor did I notice any references to sources. Though I admit it was hard to read with all the gaudy caps, bolds, colors, etc. reminiscent of the extreme conservative blogs Garfy posted.

 

References:

 

Kintisch, Eli (2009). Projections of Climate Change Go From Bad to Worse, Scientists Report. Science, 323(5921), 1546-1547.

 

Oreskes, Naomi (2004). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, 306(5702), 1686.

 

van den Hove, S.; Le Menestrel, M.; de Bettignies, H.-C. (2003). Climate Policy 2 (1), 3.

[SkinWalker]

Oh and I don't pretend that that senate site is unbiassed. It's the minority blog. However, it gives you some idea of who the so called fringe scientists are.

Ah. Yeah, it was hard to follow. I noticed names and places of origin, but not citations to studies. Lots of quotes without benefit of context.

 

Also of note, notice how they seem to be backing off the Global warming talk since the temps have actually gone DOWN these last few years. Oh wait... now it's Global Climate Change, since warming was easy enough to disprove. The old hockey stick graph makes it's rounds again.

 

Every study I've looked at regarding global temperatures shows a steady increase in surface temperatures: every model and every observation, and the observations corroborate the models when trend-lines are shown. So, it appears its both accurate and appropriate to still say "global warming" when you're discussing the specific issue of temperatures and the effects of temperatures (i.e. melting polar/glacial ice which raises sea levels). If you're looking at other issues of global warming, its more appropriate to use "climate change" since the warming can affect climate systems. It may be warmer in most parts of the globe, but, because of these systems, a cooling effect may be observed in some regions. The net effect, would still be warming.

 

Where can I find data or studies that show this "cooling?"

 

 

Reference on current warming trends:

 

Ting, Mingfang; et al (2009). Forced and Internal Twentieth-Century SST Trends in the North Atlantic. Journal of Climate, 22(6), 1469-1481.

[Tommycat]

http://www.climatecooling.org/

Note: I haven't vetted the page, It was just the first I saw.

But with the data showing lower solar sun spot activity as of late correlating with the decreases in temperature. it seems to make sense.

[SkinWalker]

The most relative link I saw there pointed to a NOAA site, which I liked: U.S. Annual Climate Review for 2008, which has data that shows a distinct cooler trend for 2008 over the previous few years.

 

However, the overall trend is still an increase. We'll need a few more years to determine whether the cooling is part of the normal fluctuations or a trend in the opposite direction.

 

I'll have to look over the other links tomorrow.... the bed calls.

[Totenkopf]

Sources for a consensus? I thought this was already common knowledge, but okay. Try van den Hove (2003); Oreskes (2004); and Kintishch, Eli (2009). I'm not asserting the consensus is right, only that there is a consensus. To me, the data are more important.

 

It's your use of terms like overwhelming that caused me to be curious as to just how many scientists there were that composed this "overwhelming concensus". Hence my query.

 

From a scientific perspective, I see this as a more accurate term and as a strength of science that it's willing to accept conclusions provisionally. You should be more worried if the scientific consensus was unwilling to change or adapt with better data and understanding.

 

That's one way of spinning it. Frankly, I think that as the term "global warming" was becoming too controversial a moniker, they opted for another term. Science adapted, but more to the political realities than the scientific ones.

 

Yes. I am. I would, however, point out that, given your rhetoric above which irrationally criticizes the provisional nature of science, your own bias is clear. Since it is, I'm curious: what motivates a bias against the premise that climate change is happening or is accelerated by human activity?

 

Nice piece of rhetoric yourself. I'm not irrationally criticizing the "provisional nature of science", but don't buy the spin for the name change either. I don't state anywhere that the climate is static, so you're making quite a leap.

[Rake]

It's your use of terms like overwhelming that caused me to be curious as to just how many scientists there were that composed this "overwhelming concensus". Hence my query.

 

 

 

That's one way of spinning it. Frankly, I think that as the term "global warming" was becoming too controversial a moniker, they opted for another term. Science adapted, but more to the political realities than the scientific ones.

 

 

 

Nice piece of rhetoric yourself. I'm not irrationally criticizing the "provisional nature of science", but don't buy the spin for the name change either. I don't state anywhere that the climate is static, so you're making quite a leap.

 

 

From your posts, at least to me, it seems like you're completely writing off the scientific aspects of climate change and instead looking at it strictly politically.

[Totenkopf]

From your posts, at least to me, it seems like you're completely writing off the scientific aspects of climate change and instead looking at it strictly politically.

 

No, merely opposed to the unquestioning leap many make to the conclusion that manmade global warming is the problem.

[SkinWalker]

What, then, is the evidence that it is or isn't?

 

As for the general trend that many who would consider themselves "green" take, which *is* that global warming is caused by people, it may just be that this is a very intuitive leap given that the current world population and impact that this population appears to have on the immediate environment (deforestation, pollution, etc.). With this in mind, it isn't hard to imagine that the trend of global warming (which appears to be a reality) has anthropogenic origins if only in part.

 

So the question then, is global warming natural, anthropogenic, or both? If both, to what extent either way?

 

Consider the following argument:

 

• Global CO2 emissions have increased greatly in the last few hundred years and are strongly correlated to human industrial advances.
  
• We know that CO2 is a by-product of the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels dominate our energy production.
  
• CO2 has the effect of trapping radiative energy from the Sun, which gets reflected back to the surface of the planet.
  
• The global mean temperatures are in a rising trend when observational data is analyzed.
  
• Since CO2 is created through human activity, it can be concluded that human activity is at least a partial cause of global warming.
  

 

What weaknesses exist in the premises that lead to the conclusion?

[EnderWiggin]

Consider the following argument:

 

• Global CO2 emissions have increased greatly in the last few hundred years and are strongly correlated to human industrial advances.
  
• We know that CO2 is a by-product of the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels dominate our energy production.
  
• CO2 has the effect of trapping radiative energy from the Sun, which gets reflected back to the surface of the planet.
  
• The global mean temperatures are in a rising trend when observational data is analyzed.
  
• Since CO2 is created through human activity, it can be concluded that human activity is at least a partial cause of global warming.
  

 

What weaknesses exist in the premises that lead to the conclusion?

 

i.e. Syllogisms aren't so scary after all

 

_EW_

[Ray Jones]

So the question then, is global warming natural, anthropogenic, or both? If both, to what extent either way?

I think from a certain point of view any anthropogenic cause is also a natural cause, so the remaining and only relevant question is, indeed, to what extend is the observed course of Earth's climate influenced by the human species in relation to, say, every other species of the whole, wide universe?

 

 

 

What weaknesses exist in the premises that lead to the conclusion?

The point where we have refrigerators? ^^

[Tommycat]

Consider the following argument:

 

• Global CO2 emissions have increased greatly in the last few hundred years and are strongly correlated to human industrial advances.
  
• We know that CO2 is a by-product of the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels dominate our energy production.
  
• CO2 has the effect of trapping radiative energy from the Sun, which gets reflected back to the surface of the planet.
  
• The global mean temperatures are in a rising trend when observational data is analyzed.
  
• Since CO2 is created through human activity, it can be concluded that human activity is at least a partial cause of global warming.
  

 

What weaknesses exist in the premises that lead to the conclusion?

 

CO2 is not the leading greenhouse emission. In fact it plays a relatively small role. Historically CO2 increases follow an increase in temperature, as a greater number of living creatures tends to increase the CO2 levels.

 

Water vapor is far more effective at trapping radiative heat.

 

Global mean temp has historically been higher without man's assistance. In fact when it was at it's highest temps the Earth was going through an explosive growth of life.

 

Correlation does not imply causality. And actually, we are pumping less pollutants into the atmosphere than in many phases of our civilization.

 

Many of the models of global warming tend to ignore external causes. For example volcanic activity, which pumps as much CO2 into the air as every car running constantly for a year, Solar activity, which has already shown that it has a more dramatic effect on our temperatures.

 

And the biggest problem with warming is that it makes money. You don't debunk what gets you the grants.

[Ray Jones]

CO2 is not the leading greenhouse emission. In fact it plays a relatively small role. Historically CO2 increases follow an increase in temperature, as a greater number of living creatures tends to increase the CO2 levels.

Though not being the leading greenhouse emission, it's still adding its part to a rise of the mean temperature.

 

Water vapor is far more effective at trapping radiative heat.

Strange, I thought water vapour is usually a result of, err, heat? I mean I'd take a wild guess and claim that the human civilisation is a rather quite exothermic one.

 

Global mean temp has historically been higher without man's assistance. In fact when it was at it's highest temps the Earth was going through an explosive growth of life.

Though not human life, or lifeforms as we know them nowadays. Actually, it appears to be true that we've had higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere, and higher mean temperatures as well. In the past. The distant past, compared to our time here on Earth.

 

I'm not so sure we'd want to have these conditions back in the here and now.

[Tommycat]

Though not being the leading greenhouse emission, it's still adding its part to a rise of the mean temperature.

 

Strange, I thought water vapour is usually a result of, err, heat? I mean I'd take a wild guess and claim that the human civilisation is a rather quite exothermic one.

 

Though not human life, or lifeforms as we know them nowadays. Actually, it appears to be true that we've had higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere, and higher mean temperatures as well. In the past. The distant past, compared to our time here on Earth.

 

I'm not so sure we'd want to have these conditions back in the here and now.

Again, I think the human aspect of global warming has been so over dramatized that people really need to take a step back.

 

Water vapor occurs even at relatively low temperatures. Though it does increase as temperatures rise. Anyone who's ever owned a pool can tell you that much.

 

Cloud cover reflects heat back to the ground. Having spent a few bitter cold nights with no cloud cover to trap in that heat would answer that one.

 

Meh honestly I'd rather have the warmer temps than the colder temps. It's a lot harder to grow food in a frozen tundra than even a desert with modern water transport