How can we destroy climate change sceptics?

[luiz]

That's not actually a relevant statement. We know that there are natural variations. However the causes of those natural variations in the past do not seem to be the cause of warming now. So, to misquote Sherlock, when you've excluded those things that don't seem to be the cause, what you are left with, no matter how politically inconvenient, is probably the truth.

The only problem is, there is disagreement over what the roles of each cause are now. Yes, the Earth is warming, and yes, part of it is definitely because of human action. But part of it is also natural, and anyone who claims to know for sure the extent of each is nothing but a liar. And anyone who claims to know the economic impacts of the warming is an even worse liar.

I am entirely convinced it would be cheaper to deal with the effects of the warming (in the places where it will bring problems, and those may well be a minority) than embark in some holy crusade to cool the planet, which is doomed to fail anyway.

 

[Lillefix]

The reason why I'm a bit sceptical is how it has been portrayed(in Norwegian media). It has seemed like it's going to be the end of the world. Oceans will rise, places where they have problems with drought it will be dryer, places with flood, wetter and so on. It seemed like absolutely nothing positive would come from it. Which I find a bit odd, considering things worked out quite well after the last Ice Age. At least for us in our latitudes. So because I couldn't fathom that everything will be more negative after global warming, despite what the media said, I concluded that they were biased, and stopped taking them seriously.

 

[Cutlass]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's pretty much a certainty that it would be cheaper to mitigate the harm than to repair it. It virtually always is. That's why the old saying is "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and not the reverse. Pollution issues in the long run are always cheaper to prevent than clean up. That's why so many polluted sites are just abandoned and people are kept out of them. Now we are at a stage where human activity will warm the planet for a good long time no matter what is done. But the longer we wait to do something the further the warming, and the damage, will go. So if it's too late to prevent much of the damage, it is not too late to prevent a lot of further damage.

But there's also the moral and property issues. You are advocating the destruction of private property in the name of some "greater good to society". And even if you were right, which doesn't make sense, it's still the confiscation and destruction of the property of many to benefit others. And that's not even getting into the personal suffering and dislocation.

 

[uppi]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's pretty much a certainty that it would be cheaper to mitigate the harm than to repair it. It virtually always is. That's why the old saying is "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and not the reverse. Pollution issues in the long run are always cheaper to prevent than clean up. That's why so many polluted sites are just abandoned and people are kept out of them. Now we are at a stage where human activity will warm the planet for a good long time no matter what is done. But the longer we wait to do something the further the warming, and the damage, will go. So if it's too late to prevent much of the damage, it is not too late to prevent a lot of further damage.

Globally you are most probably right. But it could be different on a local scale. Especially northern regions like Russia, Canada or Northern Europe might actually get benefits from warming, like more arable land, better access to resources or ice-free shipping lanes. It's hard to tell whether these would outweigh the costs, but people complaining about cold winters might not be so ardent about fighting Global Warming.

Then there are people, who most certainly suffer badly and morality comes into play. But people tend to look out for themselves first.

 

[El_Machinae]

Did you know the climate was actually warmer during some points of human history? Just saying.

Not very much warmer than it is now. Additionally, during the medieval warm period, it was only select portions of the planet that were warmer than now.

The ice that is currently melting is ice that has never melted during human (100 kya) history. And the GHGs are at levels they've never been at human history.

 

[Ecofarm]

The ice that is currently melting is ice that has never melted during human (100 kya) history. And the GHGs are at levels they've never been at human history.

And yet... throughout geologic history, we find temps WAY WAY above what they are now and for long periods of time...


Hmm...

Playing with the time-frame is silly. Look at the history.



Anyone who can look at the graph below and claim that humans are MOSTLY responsible for global warming is deceiving theselves.

How can anyone look at that graph and think "yep, definately mostly anthropogenic"??

Thinking it is completely anthropogenic is downright insane. If someone said "humans are the cause of all mass extinctions"... would you believe them?? I imagine that one might respond with "hey, wait a minute... mass extinctions happened before humans existed". The same, simple irrefutable logic is available in the anthropogenic GW debate, but somehow millions ignore it.

I think humans are contributing, based on the science behind some dynamic models of chemical interaction. To what extent? 10% - 50% is a decent guess.

Until the global warming chicken-littles get their heads around the fact that this has happened before, the debate will remain a false dichotomy in that humans get 100% or 0% of the credit.

 

[Newbunkle]

Destroying sceptics? Wow, you really have become far left!

 

[Seashore]

Looking at that graph i can see that we are heading towards an ice age!

 

[Ecofarm]

Looking at that graph i can see that we are heading towards an ice age!

This theory has become common, even in the OMG-AGW crowd.

The warming of the oceans causes a break in the mid-atlantic deep-water current (fed, of course, by the gulf stream flowing into the mediterranean - thereby forcing colder bottom-water to flow out and south of the sea).

So... this atlantic deep water current is dulled. It feeds the antartic circumpolar current.. the only continous current in the world.

When the circumpolar current is slowed or even stops... Ice Age begins.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I imagine some sort of machine that ground them up into little bits would do nicely.

 

[Ayatollah So]

On a more serious note, what if the title of this thread were "how can we communicate the facts?" In which case, I think it's important to note that the mind-bogglingly-complex computer models that are often used to address climate, are not really necessary to understand earth's heat balance. If you want to know where the added heat will be distributed to, then you need those models. But if you only want to know roughly (within a factor of 2) how much total heat will be added by a given level of CO2, you can calculate it pretty straightforwardly from well-measured values like CO2's absorption coefficients in the IR.

Some results are here. In the contest between CO2 and solar variability,

in today’s atmosphere, the Radiative Forcing caused by human activities are much more influential on climate change than the RF [Radiative Forcing] caused by natural means.

Of course, this uses IPCC data so skeptics will dismiss it out of hand ... but undecided people might not.

Edit: this website is a great resource for evaluating the science behind AGW skepticism.

 

[ainwood]

Not very much warmer than it is now. Additionally, during the medieval warm period, it was only select portions of the planet that were warmer than now.

No; it is not yet conclusive but it may be that it was only select portions of the planet that were warmer than now.

eg. here is an article thats abstract mentions clear evidence of a MWP in the antarctic peninsula.

 

[Earthling]

calling it a myth does not make it so.

It is a myth. Bill, Cutlass, whoever else posted the same are right. Extensively discussed in another thread, this post seems like it's simple enough to quote and the conclusion is clear:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8334324&postcount=127

The "unprecidented" melting of the ice at then north pole a couple of years ago has actually been public knowledge since the 1950's when American and Russian nuclear submarines occasionally reported open ocean there.

Citation needed? I guess the 50s were a bit far back for excellent satellite imagery but it hardly makes sense with regards to the pictures we do have in more recent decades.

Did you know the climate was actually warmer during some points of human history?

Depends what you define as "human history." Agriculture and writing, or Lucy?

About ozone - thousands of people have argued things like "the ozone problem went away on its own, science didn't know enough, therefore global warming is probably the same and will go away on its own too." Pointing this out was relevant and straightforward by Ayatollah.

This theory has become common, even in the OMG-AGW crowd.

[citation needed]

 

[Riffraff]

Without having read the thread: Wait 50-100 years

 

[Berzerker]

All of the natural factors I've seen do not answer the question of why the climate is warming.

the little ice age ended a century + ago, the planet warms up after interglacial cold snaps when orbital parameters favor continued warming, and they do...

 

[El_Machinae]

No; it is not yet conclusive but it may be that it was only select portions of the planet that were warmer than now.

eg. here is an article thats abstract mentions clear evidence of a MWP in the antarctic peninsula.

The article is about 200-300 year oscillations in Antarctica temperatures, and the summary mentions how these events happened to build into the effects of the MWP and the little ice age.

I'm not denying that the MWP was warmer than now. But it wasn't all that much warmer. Less than a degree, IIRC.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How can anyone look at that graph and think "yep, definately mostly anthropogenic"??

I wonder, since that would be the last 150 year.

That's 150/100.000th of the 100 mark, which is a third of a pixel ...

I think humans are contributing, based on the science behind some dynamic models of chemical interaction. To what extent? 10% - 50% is a decent guess.

Until the global warming chicken-littles get their heads around the fact that this has happened before, the debate will remain a false dichotomy in that humans get 100% or 0% of the credit.

It works like this: Earth has the ability to get rid of 100 units of CO2. Earth produces on average 95. It has 5 overcapacity. If humans only produce 10% = 10, Earth's buffer is overflowing, so CO2 goes up.

That's the theory anyway. The question is not, how much CO2 are humans producing compared to what the Earth would produce anyway, but compared to the overcapacity.

Something like this (not sure about the numbers presented here)

edit: Answer to the OP, move them to coastal areas.

 

[Cutlass]

the little ice age ended a century + ago, the planet warms up after interglacial cold snaps when orbital parameters favor continued warming, and they do...

But no one has pointed out any natural factors that would result in the Earth becoming warmer now. It doesn't happen just out of the blue. There has to be a reason. And the natural reasons have been substantially excluded.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

To destroy the climate-change skeptics, do more arguing in this manner:

 

[GreatEngineer]

Oh man, this thread probably should have ended with Glassfan on the first page. Also I'm surprised the sun cycles haven't been mentioned as much as they deserve. Bast suggested that normal climate change doesn't occur over decades, but we know the sun's rises and falls in radiation activity to restart every 11 years.

I don't really want to gtet involved with AGW, call me a skeptic if you want, but I don't see enough evidence to support either side fervently.