Ask a Global Warming Skeptic

[Cutlass]

There's another angle to skepticism that isn't being explored here, namely the "so what?" factor of anthropogenic climate change.

If the Earth is warming at a moderate pace, then it is warming at a moderate pace. Ecosystems will change, as they always have, in some cases for the better, and some cases for the worse.

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea that we're affecting our climate, but I am inherently opposed to the idea that the Earth isn't a massive feedback mechanism with the ability to counteract or moderate climatic catastrophe. For an example of this, see the massive specific heat reservoir of the Earth's oceans.

And even if we were never to have emitted a single iota of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, and indeed, even if humanity had never evolved, the Earth's climate would continue to change in unpredictable ways. We will never achieve climate stasis, because that's not how the world works.

The point is that the climate normally changes in paces that the ecology, or at least most of it, can adjust to. Not causes a true mass extinction. Right now we have a mass extinction going on. Normally some species live, some die, some change, some relocate. Now many are relocating and many more are dying. And it's happening too quickly for others to change.

 

[Thlayli]

None of the species we depend upon for food or industrial products are dying off or migrating, so I don't see what the problem is. Humanity is doing fine. And in the future, we can always genetically engineer new species to live in the altered climates.

Also, most of those species that are dying off or migrating aren't necessarily doing so because of +/- 0.5C difference in air temperature.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, coral and all shellfish are endangered by ocean warming and acidification. And so even if you are discounting over fishing as a cause of seafood collapse, you are still looking at seafood collapse. So you're wrong on that. Further, desertification is spreading. And that means less farmland. Warming is not the exclusive cause of that, but is speeding the process. The dieoffs of insect species that are beneficial to agriculture is a further issue. As is the dieoffs of forests that are both valuable in place and valuable for commercial exploitation.

So it's not at all true that climate change isn't effecting what humans use. Just because cows and pigs aren't in danger of extinction.

 

[Zelig]

As for the question of credentials, I don't think he needs a scientific background to answer questions.

Yeah, that's why I asked the question rather than reporting the thread for being useless.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hi Electric, as a fellow skeptic I'd like to ask you some questions. You already admitted the OP was worded badly, so I'm going to ignore most of that.

Question 1 (only one commenting on the OP): The title says: global warming, the OP talks about human influence. Are you skeptic about the Earth warming up? (I don't think you are, I think you are skeptic towards the human influence)

Question 2: We both are skeptic about the theories scientists have come up with to explain the phenomena surounding Global Warming. Unfortunately I haven't found any theories which explain those phenomena better that those theories. Have you?

Question 3: Doesn't it make you mad that people who reject the large amounts of evidence and the theories which try to explain that calling themselves "skeptic"? If anything, a skeptic should be skeptic towards his own skepticism. I for instance accept there's a lot of evidence which points towards humans having an influence on the earth's temperature and climate. But since the evidence is not conclusive and the theories have too large a margin and still fail to accurately predict precisely what's going to happen, we cannot accept those theories as being rock solid. However ...

Question 4: Being a skeptic does not mean you disregard the possibility of humans having an influence based on more shaky evidence and other crappy theories. So, I guess you also take into account the possibility that humans do influence the global temperature and climate. Do you think that it's possible as a skeptic you can still be in favour of trying to reduce the factors which, according to those incomplete theories, are affecting the global climate/temperatures because of 2 reasons. 1. Although poor, they are still the best theories explaining the things we see happening, and 2. You, as a skeptic, will not reject them in favour of other less well defined theories or even worse, ignore them, so you at least have to take into account they might be right, or close to being right, or at least tunneling in the general right direction. As a fellow skeptic, wouldn't you agree based on that we have to move forward cautiously from this point?

Thanks

edit: Sorry, one more

None of the above. I believe that the greenhouse gas mechanism is correct, I just think that human activity creating CO2 has an insignificant effect on it.

You need not be skeptic about this any more. It is known how much greenhouse gas humans emit. Industrial emissions about 26 GT/year, changing land use about 6 Gt/year. Now this is small but not insignificant compared to what nature puts out (450 GT from land, 300 GT sea, something like that) . Unfortunately it is more than what nature can absorb in excess, which is about 20 GT/year. (Numbers from memory, so ...). So our blue planet does have safety measures installed to get rid of excess CO2, but they're currently too small to get rid of what we produce in excess.

 

[Lillefix]

I'm one of those on the fence. Personally I don't think anyone really knows what's going on. I used to be convinced that man made global warming(mmgw) was true, but ironically, environmentalists changed my mind. I began to notice they blamed global warming for almost everything and every consequence that global warming had was negative. It all just became to farcical. So at the moment I'm not really sure, but I will never listen to what mindless environmentalists have to say about global warming again, because they know nothing. So I keep the possibility for mmgw open, but I don't really think anyone knows what they are talking about. Still I think we should be on the safe side, but we need to way it up against the cost. And we must NOT forget about other kinds of pollution. Here in Norway politicians encouraged carbon dioxide friendly diesel cars for years until they discovered it harms the local environment more than petrol cars(I thought it was common knowledge, but apparently not in our parliament).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm one of those on the fence. Personally I don't think anyone really knows what's going on. I used to be convinced that man made global warming(mmgw) was true, but ironically, environmentalists changed my mind. I began to notice they blamed global warming for almost everything and every consequence that global warming had was negative. It all just became to farcical. So at the moment I'm not really sure, but I will never listen to what mindless environmentalists have to say about global warming again, because they know nothing.

If you were swayed by environmentalists, I can see why you'd be disappointed. Why not look at what science has to say about the matter? Not scientists, but science.

Still I think we should be on the safe side, but we need to way it up against the cost. And we must NOT forget about other kinds of pollution.

Sensible.

 

[Lillefix]

If you were swayed by environmentalists, I can see why you'd be disappointed. Why not look at what science has to say about the matter? Not scientists, but science.

It kinda goes in all directions I feel. One of my favourite arguments agains mmgw is that it used to be much warmer just 1000 years ago(that's why Greenland is called Greenland). But sometimes it is said that it is already much warmer than 1000 years ago, and sometimes they say that it is still colder. What to believe? All I know is that when I was taught about the Viking age in school, the teacher told us it was much warmer back then.

 

[Cutlass]

I thought Greenland was called that to fool people?

 

[Lillefix]

I think I read somewhere that that was a myth.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It kinda goes in all directions I feel. One of my favourite arguments agains mmgw is that it used to be much warmer just 1000 years ago(that's why Greenland is called Greenland). But sometimes it is said that it is already much warmer than 1000 years ago, and sometimes they say that it is still colder. What to believe? All I know is that when I was taught about the Viking age in school, the teacher told us it was much warmer back then.

You've been duped again by "they say that ...". Never rely on that. Don't trust anything that any one here says either. Find out for yourself if you're curious.

The Atlantic was about a degree warmer, but the Glove is a lot larger than just the Atlantic. Other places were much colder and on average, which is the number that counts) it was colder.

Even so, so what if it was warmer? The mmgw-theory never stated: there aren't any other factors which can influence the temperature. You need to understand that the rate at which the Globe is Warming is the issue here. Global Warming. That rate is unprecedented.

 

[kiwitt]

You need not be skeptic about this any more. It is known how much greenhouse gas humans emit. Industrial emissions about 26 GT/year, changing land use about 6 Gt/year. Now this is small but not insignificant compared to what nature puts out (450 GT from land, 300 GT sea, something like that) . Unfortunately it is more than what nature can absorb in excess, which is about 20 GT/year. (Numbers from memory, so ...). So our blue planet does have safety measures installed to get rid of excess CO2, but they're currently too small to get rid of what we produce in excess.

This is one of the many scientific statements that turned me from the skeptic to someone who now accepts we are a significant contributor.

I do suggest the OP researches these types of articles in more depth.

 

[kiwitt]

Looks like we have turned the skeptic into accepting it.

 

[LucyDuke]

You make it sound like a failing on his part.

 

[Mise]

That would be relevant if I were trying to prove that global warming did not exist, but I'm not. I personally doubt that human activity has an effect, with or without the appropriate credentials. If you don't feel I'm qualified to give my opinion, you may feel free to ignore me.

I don't know whether you're qualified to give your opinion, because you didn't answer the question. It would have just been easier to answer the question in the first place, instead of trying to head off whatever "gotcha" you think you're heading off by digressing into this pointless and overly defensive bluster. I and others simply want to know what your scientific qualifications are; then, having gathered the relevant information, I can make an informed decision as to whether you are qualified to give your opinion, or whether I should ignore you.

If you don't have a relevant scientific background then I'll just ignore you. So tell me now and I won't bother you again.

 

[Lillefix]

It reminds me. I'll just add this as a slightly funny anecdote.

I think I mentioned it a couple of years ago, but people don't remember that far back. I took this class at the university where we were going to study the molecular structure of minerals. We used electron microscopes and so on. Very fun. Anyway, one of the professors who helped us was studying how to collect carbon dioxide from oil platforms or power plants into rocks. You know to prevent it going into the atmosphere. The ironic thing was that he and at least one of his colleagues didn't really believe in man made global warming in the first place(They believed in global warming probably, but not that it was caused from too much carbon dioxide).

 

[Mise]

Personally I'd love to chat to a global warming sceptic who is actually a global warming scientist. I'd love to learn from someone who knows a lot more than me about the subject. It's very difficult to learn from somebody who knows less than you do.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Personally I'd love to chat to a global warming sceptic who is actually a global warming scientist. I'd love to learn from someone who knows a lot more than me about the subject. It's very difficult to learn from somebody who knows less than you do.

Helps you learn patience.

 

[peter grimes]

Personally I'd love to chat to a global warming sceptic who is actually a global warming scientist.

I'm not sure there are that many out there, let alone who also share a Civ habit.

I agree that it would indeed be interesting to hear from someone from the 'other side' who has the ability to speak knowledgeably.

But nonetheless I've found this thread interesting just to get an idea of how someone on the fence thinks. I don't suppose anyone else has watched the latest Climate Denier Crock of the Week clip?

All I know is that when I was taught about the Viking age in school, the teacher told us it was much warmer back then

That was a very localized warming. Unlike the warming we're currently experiencing. And it's easy to forget that 'warming' really means' higher energy state. It's not simply that warm days will be warmer, and cold days a little less so. There is going to be a ton more energy in the Atmosphere / Ocean system, all while the input from the sun stays the same. The ability of the climate to shed excess energy is depleted, and so the temperature (read: energy) rises even further.

Even if human activity were not disposing of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere this warming would still be of global concern.

Sea level rise is the immediate threat. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are a direct threat to thousands of islands, coastal cities, and low-lying nations. Consider just one: Bangladesh. Tens of millions of people living in less than a half meter of sea level, thousands of square kilometers of agricultural land at risk of sea level rise, and an increase in cyclone severity and frequency all because we're adding more energy to the system.

Bangladesh's case alone is enough to get me to worry about this. I'd gladly pay more at the pump in order to subsidize newer non-carbon transportation and energy technologies.

 

[ArneHD]

It kinda goes in all directions I feel. One of my favourite arguments agains mmgw is that it used to be much warmer just 1000 years ago(that's why Greenland is called Greenland). But sometimes it is said that it is already much warmer than 1000 years ago, and sometimes they say that it is still colder. What to believe? All I know is that when I was taught about the Viking age in school, the teacher told us it was much warmer back then.

This is actually a case of scale, as Northern Europe was warmer at the time while the rest of the world was not. On a global average the temperatures were more or less in line with what came before and what came after. The trouble with this is that for a long time, the vast majority of climate data was collected from Europe and the Americas, and thus a local temperature increase was thought to be global.

Edit: I find Potholer54's youtube channel to be an excellent explainer of climate science.