Climate Change

[Collecemall]

Quick note to start. I realize I'm new here so I hope my posts are not becoming annoying. If they do someone let me know and I'll limit them or stop.

Today's fun comes from a friend of mine who is a science denier of all kinds. He's a Fundamentalist Christian who does what his pastor and Fox News tells him like every good 'Murican should. He posted some tripe about global warming mainly as an excuse to slam Obama and said that "Evolution and global warming use the same evidence gathering techniques. Manipulation and predictions have replaced empirical evidence. We no longer test hypothesis, we vote on them and shun those in the minority or those who we can make believe they are the minority."

Poor guy he's always being persecuted. /sarcasm

My only reply was to say that I don't know much about climate science but I don't see how people can deny it. That it seems logical to me that if you burn 4.5 billion years worth of carbon stores in 200 years and cut down 3/4 of the world's forests that absorb CO2 at the same time all the while exponentially increasing population and resource use indefinitely that bad shit is likely to happen at some point.

Here's his reply.

Since this is about climate change, I'll stick to that subject. Here are some facts that are conveniently ignored:

1. The Earth has been hotter. It got hotter without man made interference in the past so it is conceivable that it got hotter without in this latest trend (even though the trend appears to be reversing itself).

2. Temperature records have only been kept for 150 years or so which is infinitesimal amount of time compared to whichever creation theory you subscribe to. A 30 year period is a substantial time period for 150 years but not in light of thousands or millions of years.

3. Records used to be kept mostly in rural areas. Now they are kept in mostly suburban areas. Asphalt traps heat. A concentration of asphalt does have a significant affect on temperature readings. They actually refer to the phenomenon as a "heat canopy."

4. Predictions aren't lining up with reality. Even though they are constantly wrong, we keep using the same, climate change friendly, models from which to base or predictions for hurricanes, tornadic activity, receding ice caps, flooding, wildfires, etc...

5. Sticking our heads in the sand and allowing catastrophic legislation to exponentially raise energy prices to combat a theory that has so many holes would be the real travesty. We're talking about freezing our elderly and poor.

6. Carbon hasn't been proven to be a green house gas. It is assumed.

I know #6 is just plain false. I suspect he thinks #3 is because scientists weren't smart enough to work at McDonald's so they signed up for Ph D's instead but I'm sure some of you have seen this before and can tell me where they get this from #5 is a political statement and has no basis in science. So I guess I'm looking for somewhere I can find info to show him he's wrong about 1,2,4. Assuming he's wrong. I've never seen him be right about anything to do with science before. I asked for a source. Usually he sends me stuff from AIG or apologetics press. So we'll see if he sends me anything entertaining.

Do any of you know enough to help me and/or point me to sources that talk about this in terms a layman such as me can understand but are decent sources so he can't complain that I'm going to some left wing propaganda?

I'd like to see a survey done that shows the correlation between creationist and climate change deniers. Think that correlation would be extremely high?

Thanks!

 

[Inferno]

Well, this one's rather easy. It's also rather ironic this is coming now, when SkepticalScience have their 97-Day challenge. (97% of scientists accept global warming, so they're posting one quote a day.)

As a Bonus:

"Evolution and global warming use the same evidence gathering techniques. Manipulation and predictions have replaced empirical evidence. We no longer test hypothesis, we vote on them and shun those in the minority or those who we can make believe they are the minority."

Myth: Peer review process was corrupted

1. The Earth has been hotter. It got hotter without man made interference in the past so it is conceivable that it got hotter without in this latest trend (even though the trend appears to be reversing itself).

Myth: The climate's been changing before

and

Myth: Medieval warm period was warmer

2. Temperature records have only been kept for 150 years or so which is infinitesimal amount of time compared to whichever creation theory you subscribe to. A 30 year period is a substantial time period for 150 years but not in light of thousands or millions of years.

Because science can't look into the past. I mean, what does he think ice core samples and so on are for?

3. Records used to be kept mostly i...y refer to the phenomenon as a "heat canopy."

Myth: The surface temperature records unreliable. (Rural and suburban areas)

4. Predictions aren't lining up with reality. Even though they are constantly wrong, we keep using the same, climate change friendly, models from which to base or predictions for hurricanes, tornadic activity, receding ice caps, flooding, wildfires, etc...

Myth: Models are unreliable

Will reply to the rest when I get home.

 

[Collecemall]

I should have posted this to start but here's the original article he posted:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/08/Obama-s-97-Percent-Climate-Consensus-debunked-demolished-staked-through-the-heart


Which is an article based on a paper that critiques the study done by John Cook who works with skepticalscience. So it's possible he'll balk at me using them as a source to refute the article and his points. The study is about the consensus of scientists on global warming.

After reading the paper they link to and the study I figured out several issues. The biggest of which is they ignore half the study in their critique. While there could have been bias from the people who rated the papers the second method was to email the authors and have them rate their own papers. Both came out statistically the same. If you have time take a look and tell me what you think. It's possible I'm missing the mark completely.

 

[Collecemall]

Here are his sources. At least they aren't from AIG.

Heat canopies:

http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/

They call it a heat island but it's the same effect.

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

This explains the conclusion of c02 and they but into the idea but reading it closely, it shows that the entire argument is based on correlation. Temps go up and so does c02. Lately, however, Temps have leveled off while c02 has soared:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/

This site is clearly in my corner but they have their own sources.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content%2Fnew-climate-models-fall-short

I don't think there's a need for you to reply. Just thought I'd keep this current just in case. The links you left above led me to what I needed for this. Corrected the link for forbes it didn't come over by copying it. Sorry.

 

[Inferno]

I didn't read the studies yet (the first link is broken for me, could you give a citation) and I won't get to them until the weekend at the earliest, but here's my thoughts:
It doesn't matter whether John Cook or Moses wrote the articles, so long as the evidence is verifiably accurate. All articles, as far as I'm aware, cite their sources and link to relevant material. The best example is the Skeptics Guide Book, which is basically a summary of the whole argument and cites everything.

If your opponent gets irate because John Cook wrote the articles (or is associated with them) well, so bloody what? They're still accurate.

 

[Visaki]

Because I'm a major nitpicker:

6. Carbon hasn't been proven to be a green house gas. It is assumed.

He kinda has a point here. Because carbon isn't a gas in any relevant temperatures, it can't be a green house gas. On a more serious note I've noticed that surpricing number of the climate change deniers can't even say what carbondioxide, CO[sub]2[/sub], is made of and what it actually is, let alone what it can do (or more accurately, what scientists "assume" it does) in regards to global warming.

 

[Inferno]

Because I'm a major nitpicker:

6. Carbon hasn't been proven to be a green house gas. It is assumed.

He kinda has a point here. Because carbon isn't a gas in any relevant temperatures, it can't be a green house gas. On a more serious note I've noticed that surpricing number of the climate change deniers can't even say what carbondioxide, CO[sub]2[/sub], is made of and what it actually is, let alone what it can do (or more accurately, what scientists "assume" it does) in regards to global warming.

Err, it isn't? I'm fairly sure my very first chemistry lesson involved the composition of air and CO² was one of the major components. I'm fairly sure it's referred to as a greenhouse gas in most every publication I can find.
Also, Wikipedia.

That being said (for Collecmail):
Myth: Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Myth: CO2 is not a pollutant

 

[Visaki]

My nitpickity point was that carbon isn't a green house gas, or even a gas. Carbon is an element that has to be several thousands if decrees even to be gaseous (if I remember correctly).

Carbondioxide is a green house gas as per scientific consensus, which I accept.

 

[Inferno]

My nitpickity point was that carbon isn't a green house gas, or even a gas. Carbon is an element that has to be several thousands if decrees even to be gaseous (if I remember correctly).

Carbondioxide is a green house gas as per scientific consensus, which I accept.

My bad, read that wrong. That's what I get for posting in the morning. Back to the hole whence I came.

 

[Collecemall]

They moved the paper I linked to above. Here is the new one. Seems to be the same paper though.

http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-the-97-consensus-and-its-critics/

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

1. The Earth has been hotter. It got hotter without man made interference in the past so it is conceivable that it got hotter without in this latest trend (even though the trend appears to be reversing itself).

This one is especially annoying to me for the simple fact that he is right, but still so wrong. It is so short sighted and ignorant. It is true that the earth was hotter (and colder) in the past. The basic fact that is missing from that statement is modern civilization did not exist during those times. We have built a worldwide food supply that is based on the current climate. Thus, if something happens to change that, our agricultural industry will collapse. People who make this claim truly do not understand where their food comes from.

Think about it, what would happen if farms in the breadbasket of the U.S. went through a 10, 25, 50 year drought? What would happen if all that water that was supposed to fall in the U.S. ends up falling in Canada? What would that do for the U.S.’s economy? What happens if the breadbasket of the U.S. gets far too much rain for 5-10 years and washes away the top soil needed to grow the crops?

Our agriculture is based on stability, and if that stability disappears, humanity could end up going through one of the worse food shortages ever.

In addition, it is not reversing.

 

[Collecemall]

Since his sources focused on heat canopies I sent him to the paper that discusses this and the GISS website that graphs it all over the place. Here is his reply.

Had you heard the term previous to our discussion? If no, why do you think that is? If yes, why do we not see it included in reports related to rising temps? I'm skeptical of any science that has no room for opposition. Science is supposed to be the search for truth. Truth cannot be reached when the authority leaves out pertinent facts. Censorship has no place in science.

I have to assume he just didn't read what I sent him. Since then I asked him how showing what they do and then graphing it for him wasn't including it. Also, What more did he wanted them to do than what I showed him? He quit replying. Which is generally what he does once I start trying to engage him in thinking about what he believes.

 

[PAB]

So there's something (well a few things) that has me confused on climate change.

1. We are currently in an ice age, that is technically. Ice age being made up of the glacial and inter-glacial. We are currently in the inter-glacial.
2. before the whole global warming, there was the worry (at least media hype) that we were on the slope towards the next glacial period.
3. iv'e also read that our current interglacial period may be longer than had been previously predicted.

Does this mean that, if we remove anthropogenic warming, ghg's, what are the general long term trends in change.
i.e. are we "naturally" slowly cooling towards a glacial, or in a warming trend within the interglacial.

Which means are we through climate change increasing the rate of warming , or are we causing warming in contrast to natural cooling trends ?

 

[Inferno]

2. before the whole global warming, there was the worry (at least media hype) that we were on the slope towards the next glacial period.

Are you referring to this or something else?
I don't quite understand what your whole post meant, but this point was the one I least understood. Could you please clarify your post a little?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So there's something (well a few things) that has me confused on climate change.

1. We are currently in an ice age, that is technically. Ice age being made up of the glacial and inter-glacial. We are currently in the inter-glacial.

Correct.

2. before the whole global warming, there was the worry (at least media hype) that we were on the slope towards the next glacial period.

As you point out, it would not surprise me if this were all media hype. Just look at the media hype around vaccines and evolution to let you know that the media loves to sell the false narrative of balance when it comes to "controversial" topics.

3. iv'e also read that our current interglacial period may be longer than had been previously predicted.

I have not heard of this. From my understanding, the climate on earth is controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, and they were pointing to cooling happening at a constant rate.

Does this mean that, if we remove anthropogenic warming, ghg's, what are the general long term trends in change.
i.e. are we "naturally" slowly cooling towards a glacial, or in a warming trend within the interglacial.

We were at the end of a warming trend in an interglacial.

Which means are we through climate change increasing the rate of warming , or are we causing warming in contrast to natural cooling trends ?

We are causing warming in contrast to natural cooling trends.

 

[WarK]

I have not heard of this. From my understanding, the climate on earth is controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, and they were pointing to cooling happening at a constant rate.

From a podcast about ice ages on bbc I think I remember that for the Earth to enter an ice age there has to be land at either or both poles. In our Time, search for Ice Ages 14 Feb 13 It's been a while so I may remember something wrong. I think I'll listen to it again.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have not heard of this. From my understanding, the climate on earth is controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, and they were pointing to cooling happening at a constant rate.

From a podcast about ice ages on bbc I think I remember that for the Earth to enter an ice age there has to be land at either or both poles. In our Time, search for Ice Ages 14 Feb 13 It's been a while so I may remember something wrong. I think I'll listen to it again.

Having a large land mass at either of the poles helps, because that allows ice to build up with very little melting. The North Pole can melt away faster than the South Pole because water is able to flow under the icecaps and warm it up from the bottom as well as the air and sun warming it up from the top. If the ice is sitting on a landmass, the ground under it has a lot harder time warming or cooling, because it does not flow like water. Thus, the South Pole is able to keep ice longer.

There are also feedback loops that go into having ice at the poles. Things like, the more ice, the more sunlight can be reflected, leading to more cooling. Therefore, having landmasses at the pole would lead to longer and more sustained ice ages, but the main driving factor behind ice ages is still the earths orbit and tilt around the sun.

We have fossil evidence of things like crocodiles, small dinosaurs, and tropical plants in the artic circle during the Cretaceous and Paleocene, thus there was land at or around the poles, and it did not lead to an ice age.

 

[PAB]

I have not heard of this. From my understanding, the climate on earth is controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, and they were pointing to cooling happening at a constant rate.

Does this mean that, if we remove anthropogenic warming, ghg's, what are the general long term trends in change.
i.e. are we "naturally" slowly cooling towards a glacial, or in a warming trend within the interglacial.

We were at the end of a warming trend in an interglacial.

Which means are we through climate change increasing the rate of warming , or are we causing warming in contrast to natural cooling trends ?

We are causing warming in contrast to natural cooling trends.

Heard of Milankovitch cycles before, ill check it out properly. Thanks.
Found a little national geographic video clip on the cycles here> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/ice-age-cycles/

Considering a glacial period wouldn't be ideal compared to the way humanity lives now, even though a glacial period will occur 10's of thousands of years from now, could the current climate crises be a blessing in disguise. I mean this in terms of alerting us to climate change, and forcing our hand into extensive study. I.e. hypothetically would we want to induce anthropogenic climate warming in contrast to the natural cooling trends at some point (even though that's what we appear to be doing anyway but in a blind, dangerous and uncontrolled way) ?

Personally i don't agree with the general idea that "mother nature" has to be left alone. Rather than a leave no trace in terms of global human activity , which would have us using horse and carts in some Utopian "green" world. Should we rather look at climate as another aspect of our environment that we must attempt to master and influence to our needs....

 

[Inferno]

Considering a glacial period wouldn't be ideal compared to the way humanity lives now, even though a glacial period will occur 10's of thousands of years from now, could the current climate crises be a blessing in disguise. I mean this in terms of alerting us to climate change, and forcing our hand into extensive study. I.e. hypothetically would we want to induce anthropogenic climate warming in contrast to the natural cooling trends at some point (even though that's what we appear to be doing anyway but in a blind, dangerous and uncontrolled way) ?

You're basically talking about geoengineering or climate engineering or environmental engineering, whichever. They're all the same side of the same coin.

There are three main problems:
1) Public acceptance. The public does not yet fully accept that climate change is happening and (see the Senate decision) that it's heavily influenced by humans. That's a problem. We'd need a far greater trust in scientists and acceptance of the facts to move in that direction.

2) Public support. Even if the whole population were to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming over night, we'd still not have support for geoengineering. There's a lot of fear, some of it justified, that this sort of tampering with nature might result in even bigger catastrophes than the one we're currently facing. Even I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea.

3) Political realities. Let's face it, most geoengineering costs a lot of money, time and other resources. It would take a more-or-less superbly working country (currently only the scandiwegian countries come to mind) with lots of funding to even attempt this. Let's be honest, the U.S. and most other European countries have more pressing issues (or so they think), to say nothing of the South American, African and Asian countries. If we can't fix small problems like polluted lakes (90% of the coastline of the Great Lakes isn't safe any more?!?) then how can we dare tackle the world?

Personally i don't agree with the general idea that "mother nature" has to be left alone. Rather than a leave no trace in terms of global human activity , which would have us using horse and carts in some Utopian "green" world. Should we rather look at climate as another aspect of our environment that we must attempt to master and influence to our needs

I think so, yes. I'm thinking specifically of this wonderful piece:

Source[/url]"]‘so our significance in the universe at present is roughly equivalent to the significance of the average Joe here on planet Earth in his relation to the human race?’

‘a little less. Level One, the level your species has reached, begins with the invention of the flying machine. The next level is achieved when a species is no longer dominated by or dependent upon it's own primary – your Sun. They are able to prosper away from their own, or indeed any other, stellar system. Humanity is only just into the flying machine phase, so as you can imagine, on that scale, the human race is somewhat near the bottom of the level one pack’

‘Do you mean we will one day control our own Sun like Kardashev and Asimov talk about?’

'quite the opposite. Those are the visions of an evolving mechanical species who imagine that bigger machines are better and stronger and that we will always need more and more energy to achieve mastery of the universe. The truth is the exact opposite. The more advanced we become, the less energy we require and the less impact we make on our environment. You manipulate matter, which requires enormous amounts of energy. We manipulate energy, which requires none. As a consequence, you would not, for example, even recognise a level two species as a lifeform unless it chose to let you '

I've underlined the important bit. And this:

‘Well, if you’ve been watching us closely since then, what your average citizen is going to want to know is why you haven’t intervened more often. Why, if you have the power and omniscience that goes with being a god, have you sat back and allowed us to endure such incredible suffering and human misery in the past few centuries?’

‘It seems to be necessary.’

‘NECESSARY??!!’

‘Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate their planet. Like your dolphins and most of the intelligent flyers we were just talking about, they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take your course, which is to manipulate the environment. Unfortunately for the dolphin, theirs is a dead end. They may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet earth, let alone your solar system - not without your help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it and spread their seed throughout the universe.

Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves. This nearly always evolves into tribal competition in one form or another and becomes more and more destructive - exactly like your own history. However this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.

You need an arms race in order to make progress.

Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never acquire. And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species. Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.

Militarisation and the development of weapons of mass destruction are your first serious test at level one. You're still not through that phase, though the signs are promising. There is no point whatsoever in my intervening to prevent your self-destruction. Your ability to survive these urges is a crucial test of your fitness to survive later stages. So I would not, never have and never will intervene to prevent a species from destroying itself. Most, in fact, do just that.’

I think this is quintessential. We will not progress (as a species) if we do not take more control of our world. The question is how we do this. We are currently very crude: Diverging rivers and building walls to tame the water, building shock-proof houses against earthquakes. This is all we can do for now, but it won't be enough. I believe that in a thousand years or so, we may be able to influence the weather, the earth, maybe even energy. The real questions are: How long will it take and how do we get there? And will we survive until that day comes?

 

[PAB]

2) Public support. Even if the whole population were to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming over night, we'd still not have support for geoengineering. There's a lot of fear, some of it justified, that this sort of tampering with nature might result in even bigger catastrophes than the one we're currently facing. Even I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea.

3) Political realities. Let's face it, most geoengineering costs a lot of money, time and other resources. It would take a more-or-less superbly working country (currently only the scandiwegian countries come to mind) with lots of funding to even attempt this. Let's be honest, the U.S. and most other European countries have more pressing issues (or so they think), to say nothing of the South American, African and Asian countries. If we can't fix small problems like polluted lakes (90% of the coastline of the Great Lakes isn't safe any more?!?) then how can we dare tackle the world?

Well lots of good points. My thoughts were always a sort of far in the distant future if it were necessary. To consider it today, in our present, seems ridiculous- can we dare tackle the world... id vote against it. What you bring up regarding funding and the inability to fix small environmental problems is very important. I think the wider point is the inter-connectivity of our economic and social system and its connection to our technical and scientific capabilities.

I think this is quintessential. We will not progress (as a species) if we do not take more control of our world. The question is how we do this. We are currently very crude: Diverging rivers and building walls to tame the water, building shock-proof houses against earthquakes. This is all we can do for now, but it won't be enough. I believe that in a thousand years or so, we may be able to influence the weather, the earth, maybe even energy. The real questions are: How long will it take and how do we get there? And will we survive until that day comes?

Fair questions. And i agree in general.