Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[Cutlass]

Why is global warming such a bad thing? In the past we have had Ice ages that were very destructive but I have never seen anything in the past say that when temperatures are warmer that bad things have happened?

Sea levels rise. A very large part of the human race lives just barely above sea level. That alone will probably displace well over a billion people. And many cities will be endangered, and have to be abandoned or surrounded by dikes. Deserts will expand. And marginal farmland near deserts will become unfarmable. Displacing and starving many millions more people. Weather patterns in farming regions will change. More flooding, less predictable rains. So farming will be impacted everywhere. Storms will be more severe. More damaging storms will destroy property and displace people. Melting snowpacks and glaciers mean that there will be more flooding and less predictable river flows. So less water for human use. Sea level rise will also contaminate coastal wetlands with sea water, and salt them up. Also meaning less water for human use.

Short version: We built our society around the weather patterns of recent centuries. Change the weather too much, and we have to rebuild our society.

 

[El_Machinae]

I know, I just want to post that image again


Please good sir, when saying a temperature list if it is °F or °C


I'm just slightly skeptical about a 29°F temperature increase. The weather doesn't seem to become hotter or colder just weirder, which I assume is why some call it global weirding.

The OP is not suggesting that we'll get up to 29 F warmer. The study is just saying that the last time the CO2 was that high, it was that warmer.

"Weather" doesn't need to warm with global warming. It's going to change the climate. "Weirding" is not a bad word, though.

 

[civ_king]

Why is global warming such a bad thing? In the past we have had Ice ages that were very destructive but I have never seen anything in the past say that when temperatures are warmer that bad things have happened?

Many species would go extinct and it would displace hundreds of millions of people

 

[Berzerker]

co2 doesn't drive climate, climate drives co2

when the world warms, life expands - life produces co2

doubling or tripling co2 should warm us a bit, but the amount is far too small to drive the climate

if we're in an ice age, our co2 aint gonna change that, but it might help reduce the impact a little. Hopefully enough to prevent a mile high ice sheet from covering a ~ 1/3rd of the northern hemisphere.

As for ice vs water, I vote water. I want a warmer world... Rising seas? That'll be a problem for sure, we better start figuring out how to pump sea water into natural and man-made reservoirs.

We have evidence big chunks of Florida were under water ~125 kya when sea levels were much higher, and unless we're gonna blame Atlanteans, that was natural. So how would Aussies like an inland sea?

 

[Formaldehyde]

co2 doesn't drive climate, climate drives co2

I find it is interesting how many people overlook or ignore that apparent fact. At least it certainly seems to have done so in the past.

 

[Cutlass]

Why can't it work both ways?

 

[Bootstoots]

I wonder - are there any really agreed-upon predictions of how global warming will affect precipitation patterns? Global average temperatures rising should cause a rise in average preciptitation as well, but obviously there will be some places that won't fit the trend and will become drier. I know I've heard predictions of that sort, but I'd like to know if any of them are regarded as anything but speculative.

Overall, I'm under the impression that AGW is absolutely undeniable, but that the magnitude of the change, and what it will do to local climates, is very much unknown. All in all, I think it's likely that it will be very inconvenient for a lot of people, but that humanity will be able to adapt to it. And, at this point, it seems better that we develop as much of the world as we can at the expense of more carbon emissions, rather than trying to make developing countries output less carbon (which won't happen anyway).

As for the anti-AGW crowd, you're really not on solid ground at all. Among other issues, the dramatic CO2 rise we've seen is certainly anthropogenic. How else do you explain a sudden 100 ppm CO2 increase? And from there, it's not hard to show that more CO2 will cause a temperature increase - it's a strong absorber of infrared radiation, which obviously drives the temperature up. It's of course true that temperature increases cause release of CO2 as well, and that makes the problem more dangerous because of those positive feedback loops. What's unknown as I understand it is basically everything else about the process, including the magnitude of the warming and what it will do to local climates.

I think the best place for conservatives to go with this isn't to deny AGW, but to treat it as a reasonable price for human progress and something that we can deal with, and to oppose any carbon controls that would cause economic hardship. Does that make sense to anybody?

 

[choxorn]

I can even explain how higher temperature can cause higher CO2 levels (as opposed to the other way round). Here's how: before humans and cars and factories existed, what was the primary source of CO2 for plants to inhale? Animals exhaling. And what do animals do when it's cold? They become less active, or they hibernate. They don't have any choice in the matter--because when it's cold there's less food for animals to eat. Less food, less energy. So they become less active, and consume less oxygen, thereby producing less CO2. Hence: animals exhale less CO2 when it's cold, and more when it's warm.

Plants also become less active when it's cold. Deciduous trees lose they're leaves, they stop growing, budding, making seeds. They don't have a choice in the matter- less sun means less photosynthesis means less energy. Hence, less CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere, and less oxygen is put back in.

 

[carlosMM]

I'm just slightly skeptical about a 29°F temperature increase. The weather doesn't seem to become hotter or colder just weirder, which I assume is why some call it global weirding.

Where do you live?

Where I live summers have gotten warmer, nights have gotten warmer, winters have gotten warmer until about 5 years ago, when changes in arctic weather patterns consistent with massive global warming resulted in colder, snow-rich winters here.

Remember: we're talking global, not Bumfu*k, Idaho or Djibuti.

Moderator Action: Use clean language and please don't try to fool the autocensor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Why is global warming such a bad thing? In the past we have had Ice ages that were very destructive but I have never seen anything in the past say that when temperatures are warmer that bad things have happened?

If you look at the climate record of earth, sorting for changes with the same rate as what we do now you'll find them correlated with the top extinction events. That there may also be causation is a scary thought - what if only 33% of all species die out? Can you even begin to imagine the consequences if half the world's forests die off from droughts within 100 years? While at the same time new ones could grow elsewhere, but don't have the time? and so on..... the consequences of screwing up local climate and weather over a short time are massive.

co2 doesn't drive climate, climate drives co2
when the world warms, life expands - life produces co2

doubling or tripling co2 should warm us a bit, but the amount is far too small to drive the climate

I find it is interesting how many people overlook or ignore that apparent fact. At least it certainly seems to have done so in the past.

wrong - this is not universally true. I suggest you peruse the links previously provided:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

more here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
basic version of that post here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-the-CO2-lag-in-past-climate-change.html

and even more, with a nice graph explaining the Milankovitch cycles
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html

if we're in an ice age, our co2 aint gonna change that, but it might help reduce the impact a little. Hopefully enough to prevent a mile high ice sheet from covering a ~ 1/3rd of the northern hemisphere.

As for ice vs water, I vote water. I want a warmer world... Rising seas? That'll be a problem for sure, we better start figuring out how to pump sea water into natural and man-made reservoirs.

who says we are in an ice age? HINT: nobody sane

btw, have you compared CO2 level predictions (recent ones, not from 1985) to CO2 levels throughout the last few million years? We're rapidly leaving the window in which ice ages the way the last few were are possible.

We have evidence big chunks of Florida were under water ~125 kya when sea levels were much higher, and unless we're gonna blame Atlanteans, that was natural. So how would Aussies like an inland sea?

sources, please.


(I predict that reading them will show your claim to be an out-of-context quote)

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well then those unemployed proles should stop being so lazy, get marketable talents, stop leeching on the government, (as if it's the government's job to intervene in the economy and improve unemployment?) and leave the science policy to the scientists.

Gosh, you know, it would be nice if people wouldn't label the unemployed "lazy".

Millions of people lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and the market hasn't fully recovered. What are they supposed to do, other than begging for work at a 7-Eleven, which btw is being done?

Having been one of those unemployed people, I find this kind of rhetoric from people offensive and beyond ignorant. It's really offensive to me.

 

[Dachs]

Gosh, you know, it would be nice if people wouldn't label the unemployed "lazy".

Millions of people lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and the market hasn't fully recovered. What are they supposed to do, other than begging for work at a 7-Eleven, which btw is being done?

Having been one of those unemployed people, I find this kind of rhetoric from people offensive and beyond ignorant. It's really offensive to me.

I guess detecting sarcasm on the internet is really hard. although that post had enough semi-serious points mixed in for it to be pretty confusing I guess

 

[carlosMM]

I guess detecting sarcasm on the internet is really hard. although that post had enough semi-serious points mixed in for it to be pretty confusing I guess

and don't forget that it is the Republican party position, too.

 

[Abegweit]

Can you actually prove that? Almost all of the "proof" you've seen in your life is proof of correlation--not proof of cause.

Ummm... I guess I missed this part but... where is the correlation? Global temperatures started rising in the 17th century, CO2 levels followed in the late 19th and mass industrialisation came after WW II.

In short, the conclusion is obvious: Global Warming causes Industrialisation!

Anyway, the OP is not so much of a short-term prediction. What they're doing is clarifying the history of GHGs on Earth. The mechanisms by which Earth was 16 degrees hotter are clearly not completely understood, because our prediction regarding CO2 forcings don't get us there.

Precisely. IOW, the models are garbage. They don't predict the future and they don't "retrodict" the past either. If they actually were true then, then we wouldn't be here. The swings predicted in global temperature are far too large and either the planet would have burned to death or frozen to death long ago.

In short the models are a joke. They are a lie. This is not surprising because their purpose is not scientific but rather is political in nature, to "prove" that we need massive state intervention in other peoples' lives and massive amounts of theft. They don't support Kyoto or Copenhagen either. If they actually were true, we should shut down civilisation entirely, not just cut back twenty years.

One of the most interesting things to come out the Climategate scandal was the revelation about how incompetent the programmers were. The comments in the code clearly showed that they had no clue what they were doing. Data was destroyed. Since the purpose was political, this is understandable enough; the results are what count, not the inputs so why would anyone care? On the contrary, data is an annoyance which should be shoved aside.

And, of course, like all government lies, everything is concealed and hidden from view. After all, we can't let the mundanes know what's going on. It is far beyond their ken.

Science, in contrast, happens in open sight.

 

[carlosMM]

Ummm... I guess I missed this part but... where is the correlation? Global temperatures started rising in the 17th century, CO2 levels followed in the late 19th and mass industrialisation came after WW II.

Care to show supporting data?
Cause in fact, CO2 started going up some 8,000 years ago with massive deforestation. Fossil fuels were burnt in large amounts long before the late 19th century (although there was a marked increase from 1850 on, and for a long tiem the curve was an exponential one), and mass industrialization began way earlier, too.

Precisely. IOW, the models are garbage. They don't predict the future and they don't "retrodict" the past either. If they actually were true then, then we wouldn't be here. The swings predicted in global temperature are far too large and either the planet would have burned to death or frozen to death long ago.

Please show us some models that predict way outside the IPCC range - that one is quite modest, actually.

In short the models are a joke. They are a lie. This is not surprising because their purpose is not scientific but rather is political in nature, to "prove" that we need massive state intervention in other peoples' lives and massive amounts of theft. They don't support Kyoto or Copenhagen either. If they actually were true, we should shut down civilisation entirely, not just cut back twenty years.

One of the most interesting things to come out the Climategate scandal was the revelation about how incompetent the programmers were. The comments in the code clearly showed that they had no clue what they were doing. Data was destroyed. Since the purpose was political, this is understandable enough; the results are what count, not the inputs so why would anyone care? On the contrary, data is an annoyance which should be shoved aside.

Hm, funny conspiracy theory here - how come that out of the tens of thousands of badly-paid people involved nobody every exposed anything?
To get specific:
- what data was destroyed? Bring proof.
- what code was bad? Bring proof.
- what data was ignored? Bring proof.

Doing a Gish gallop just pegs you as a liar or a copy-&-paster from bad websites. If you allege that thousands of scientists conspired to lie in order to change policies you'll have to bring solid data.

And, of course, like all government lies, everything is concealed and hidden from view. After all, we can't let the mundanes know what's going on. It is far beyond their ken.

Science, in contrast, happens in open sight.

uh - that's a nice contradiciton to what you suggested in the first half of you post. Make up your mind before you lie!

Moderator Action: Please think twice before calling someone a liar
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Dachs]

and don't forget that it is the Republican party position, too.

No, it's not. Republicans would never leave science policy to the scientists.

 

[carlosMM]

No, it's not. Republicans would never leave science policy to the scientists.

true, that part is different

 

[carlosMM]

hot off the "press", a must-read for BasketCase, Berzerker, and especially Abegweit:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=524

choice quotes
- please read entire linked post for context:

- "my results showed considerably *more* warming than all of the global-scale temperature index results shown on the NASA/GISS web-site *except* for NASA's "Northern Latitudes" index. So it turns out that all the effort that the NASA folks put into "cooking their temperature books", if anything, *reduces* their warming estimates. If they wanted to exaggerate the global-warming threat, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by computing simple averages."

- "the differences between my results for raw vs. adjusted GHCN data were quite modest"

- "My results show monthly-maximum temperatures rising at least as fast as the monthly-minimum temperatures during the 1910-1940 warming period. But my post-1970 results show monthly-minimum temperatures rising faster than monthly maximum temperatures. These results are entirely consistent with greater CO2 forcing later in the century than earlier. My results also show that during the mid-20th-century cooling period, maximum temperatures declined more rapidly than did minimum temperatures – these results are consistent with the aerosol-forced cooling as a plausible contributor to that cooling trend. "

- "my little project didn't produce any exciting or groundbreaking results. But it *did* show how easy it is for an average layperson with very run-of-the-mill programming skills to perform some simple validation checks of NASA/NOAA/CRU's global temperature estimates. "

- "One of the important take-home lessons here is that all of the temperature data and software tools are available **for free** to anyone who wants to test the basic validity of the global surface temperature record."

So, where is the cooking of data? Where is the political influence? Where are the lies?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why can't it work both ways?

It certainly can! There're many ways in which climate can drive CO2 ppm. One of the well-popularised concerns is that warming is going to allow the release of methane from the tundra region (via microbial digestion of frozen biomass). This release of methane will very quickly (in geological terms) increase CO2 ppm. The warming drives the CO2, in this case. Of course, there's then a feedback effect. It's completely undeniable that the CO2 will then generate its own heating effect.

Historically, there have been many instances of climate driving CO2. And a few where CO2 drives climate, too. In our instance, of course, we're pumping CO2. It's the variable that's changing. That's why this time it's called man-made climate change.

Precisely. IOW, the models are garbage. They don't predict the future and they don't "retrodict" the past either. If they actually were true then, then we wouldn't be here. The swings predicted in global temperature are far too large and either the planet would have burned to death or frozen to death long ago.

Honestly, you're reading different models than I am. Or, you're getting your interpretation of the debate from people who're reading different models.
[/QUOTE]

And, of course, like all government lies, everything is concealed and hidden from view. After all, we can't let the mundanes know what's going on. It is far beyond their ken.

Science, in contrast, happens in open sight.

??? There are multiple, competing, climatology research centers. And the science does happen in open sight. Really, I sometimes DO think that this issue is beyond the ken of mundanes. People seem to think that there're 2-3 models that are government approved or something. No, there're attempts to streamline models statistically, but those aren't the models. The actual models are different scientific organisations struggling with data-sets and supercomputer. The majority of the literature is about some small tidbit of regional climate OR some global perturbation in one or two metrics.

Finally, this is very much a libertarian issue. This issue demands that the libertarians be wise and educated, and not just sheep with objectivist leanings. Libertarianism demands that we're not allowed to hurt each other without consent. Libertarians have very good cause to suspect that pollution is going to negatively affect other people, people who never consented to the pollution. Or, at least enough cause to investigate the matter and provide political solutions. We're supposed to be the ones that assess downstream effects, and determine whether property rights are being violated, and come up with suggestions on how to mitigate, compensate, or halt any abuse.

Let the others want to socialise the pollution and privatise the profits. Let them be okay with 'spreading the filth'. Let them buy corporate propaganda or wallow in scientific denial. We understand property rights, contracts, and consent.

 

[Dragonlord]

Well well, look who's back in the global warming argument.


So? The connection between the two doesn't show which is the cause and which is the result. I know everybody in here is going to assume it's CO2 causing higher temperatures, but what if it's the other way round? What if it's higher temperature that causes higher CO2 emissions....?

Well, well, look who's back being a climate change denier troll?
Moderator Action: Insulting someone is flaming. If someone is trolling, please ignore or report them
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I've long since come to the conclusion that you yourself don't believe these stupid arguments you keep bringing up - you just throw them out to muddy the waters!

Why is global warming such a bad thing? In the past we have had Ice ages that were very destructive but I have never seen anything in the past say that when temperatures are warmer that bad things have happened?

It is not so much that higher temperature averages would be a bad thing per se, but that the speed of the temperature change would make adaptation difficult, both for humans and other fauna and flora. A rapid change will cause an accelerated rate of extinctions in an ecology that is already experiencing a very high rate due to human influence. For humans, a rapid change will cause many problems, first for those who are too poor to adapt easily, and then very likely for the more developed nations as well due to mass migrations and the like.
If you think you Americans have problems with your southern border now, just imagine what it will be like if Mexico becomes one big desert? Or what would happen in Europe if the Mediterranean basin became too hot for agriculture? Or the floodplains of Bangladesh become submerged? The list of possible hotspots (literally ) across the world goes on and on - not to forget that it might be happening at the very same time as oil reserves run out and the world economy is struggling to adapt to new energy standards.
Worst case scenario: a new cycle of wars all over the world, with millions of dead, not directly from the temperature rise, but from the resulting struggles over resources.

 

[Berzerker]

wrong - this is not universally true. I suggest you peruse the links previously provided:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

more here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
basic version of that post here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-the-CO2-lag-in-past-climate-change.html

and even more, with a nice graph explaining the Milankovitch cycles
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html

I perused... Your sources confirm what I said - climate drives co2, not the other way around. If you look at the graph of a warming trend ~240 kya (6 min into the video) you'll see that co2 peaked 800 years after temperature. The world was cooling for 800 years before co2 peaked. As the world warms up, co2 is produced and released and we get a bit warmer. As the world temperature peaks, still rising co2 slows the cooling trend (for awhile).

who says we are in an ice age? HINT: nobody sane

I said, "if we were in an ice age", our co2 wouldn't change that reality. And thats true... Maybe in the future we'll be able to modify our atmosphere to retain enough heat to ward off an ice age.

sources, please.

(I predict that reading them will show your claim to be an out-of-context quote)

It wasn't a quote, just some researchers in a documentary on climate history standing at an old shoreline miles from the current ocean.

Cause in fact, CO2 started going up some 8,000 years ago with massive deforestation.

Rising seas flooded vast tracts of forests by then but warming seas were a major factor.