Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says Physicist

[realibrad]

No one disagrees with the statement the Earth is warming. I happen to disagree we are in big trouble if the Earth continues to warm. A few more degrees rise will do more good than a few degrees of cooling.

The question is really how much man is contributing to the increase in temperature we have seen over the last 200 years or so. Based on my review of all the science presented in layman's terms, I conclude man has a small role. How much man generated CO2 is a direct contributor to warming is yet to be determined. GCW models are not at all predicting trends accurately.

Can you explain the more good that will come from a few degrees of warming? Everything I have seen suggests that the shift will cause some pretty big issues.

As for man and how big of an impact we have, I cant say, and I dont think anyone can give a number as to the impact. The data that is coming in seems to point to a pretty significant impact, but the gap for error is still pretty big.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow, I had forgotten about this thread.

I fully understand the scientific method. Part of it is to observe and draw conclusions from your observations. Looking at the graph I posted, you can see a trend. These are empirical measurements. Could they be flawed, yes. The likelihood is reduced by the fact that the more we measure, the more the measurements seem to point to the same thing. There are for sure variations and so it may go up and down over a period of time. Could this recent historical trend be a random variation, maybe. Climate science is working on establishing predictions that give more quantifiable predictions. It could turn out that they were wrong, and global warming is not going to be a trend for the long term.

The fact of the matter is, that the earth is warming. The data I provided shows this. Man made or otherwise, if it continues we are in big trouble.

The planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age which ended about 400 years ago...the data proves this and there is little to no debate on this fact...so I really don't get why you felt compelled to state the obvious and post those graphs. The $64 question is how much manmade carbon dioxide has contributed to this warming and therein lies the rub. We have about 40+ climate models, all of which failed to predict the pause in warming over the past 17 years. This highly suggests that our understanding of the variables and various mechanisms which affect our climate is less than robust. The model failures indicate that the 'science is settled' rhetoric is nonsense. Climatology is in its infancy and there is so much we don't know about how our climate feedback mechanisms work. We need much better models...ones that are credible and with the ability to actually predict with some degree of confidence. Climate science is highly complex and it may be a while before our understanding is confirmed by predictive models which are indicative of the actual depth of our scientific knowledge.

 

[Jaskalas]

The planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age which ended about 400 years ago...

The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century...

~160 years ago.

 

[realibrad]

The planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age which ended about 400 years ago...the data proves this and there is little to no debate on this fact...so I really don't get why you felt compelled to state the obvious and post those graphs. The $64 question is how much manmade carbon dioxide has contributed to this warming and therein lies the rub. We have about 40+ climate models, all of which failed to predict the pause in warming over the past 17 years. This highly suggests that our understanding of the variables and various mechanisms which affect our climate is less than robust. The model failures indicate that the 'science is settled' rhetoric is nonsense. Climatology is in its infancy and there is so much we don't know about how our climate feedback mechanisms work. We need much better models...ones that are credible and with the ability to actually predict with some degree of confidence. Climate science is highly complex and it may be a while before our understanding is confirmed by predictive models which confirm the actual depth of our scientific knowledge.

As far as I know, there is not a climate model that is accurate enough to predict year by year temps. Everything I have seen works over may decades, so the fact that the models did not say a small cooling trend does not mean much.

I also agree that many of the variables have not been fully quantified. I just had a discussion with my sister last night about where she should take her PHD she is about to get in mathematics, and I suggested a few fields where I feel there needs to be more quantification. She is looking at a few things, Climate science being one of them. She also has started to look into astrophysics.

The argument over statement that the "science is settled" is kinda a dumb one. Science is never settled, but it can say some things with confidence. The earth is warming at a pace that we cant explain with purely natural forces. It could be that we have missed some variables in nature, or it could be man made, or both. The earth is warming and the data shows that, so I suppose the science can say that at least.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century...

~160 years ago.

Yeah...I saw that when I was preparing my response. Perhaps I should have said that we've been warming for the past 400 years since the coldest point of the Little Ice Age.

 

[Jaskalas]

I won't wait for the settled science, but this pause lines up directly with the PDO turning cold, the AMO will soon follow and temperatures should remain flat (or decline) in the next couple decades.

If, OTOH, temperatures continue to rise even when ocean cycles oppose it - that tells me how large the human influence is. How big the Climate Sensitivity number is.

I'm just waitng for the emperical evidence to rule out known alternatives to CO2 - and that's just a matter of time.

 

[dphantom]

Can you explain the more good that will come from a few degrees of warming? Everything I have seen suggests that the shift will cause some pretty big issues.

As for man and how big of an impact we have, I cant say, and I dont think anyone can give a number as to the impact. The data that is coming in seems to point to a pretty significant impact, but the gap for error is still pretty big.

Longer growing seasons, increased CO2 leading to better crop yields, offset by some rise in sea levels, warmer temps.

 

[realibrad]

I won't wait for the settled science, but this pause lines up directly with the PDO turning cold, the AMO will soon follow and temperatures should remain flat (or decline) in the next couple decades.

If, OTOH, temperatures continue to rise even when ocean cycles oppose it - that tells me how large the human influence is. How big the Climate Sensitivity number is.

I'm just waitng for the emperical evidence to rule out known alternatives to CO2 - and that's just a matter of time.

Careful, you could find yourself dealing with the same issue that the climate scientist have. There are many factors that could change, and cause the earth to heat up. Say the sun starts to pump out more radiation and that causes earth to heat up. You would be incorrect about your predictions, but not wrong about human influence.

 

[fskimospy]

Longer growing seasons, increased CO2 leading to better crop yields, offset by some rise in sea levels, warmer temps.

You realize that the costs to us greatly outweigh the benefits, right? Like, it's not even close.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As far as I know, there is not a climate model that is accurate enough to predict year by year temps. Everything I have seen works over may decades, so the fact that the models did not say a small cooling trend does not mean much.

I also agree that many of the variables have not been fully quantified. I just had a discussion with my sister last night about where she should take her PHD she is about to get in mathematics, and I suggested a few fields where I feel there needs to be more quantification. She is looking at a few things, Climate science being one of them. She also has started to look into astrophysics.

The argument over statement that the "science is settled" is kinda a dumb one. Science is never settled, but it can say some things with confidence. The earth is warming at a pace that we cant explain with purely natural forces. It could be that we have missed some variables in nature, or it could be man made, or both. The earth is warming and the data shows that, so I suppose the science can say that at least.

Nobody expects a model that can predict year-to-year...something that predicts decade-to-decade would be a great start. I personally would love to see a model that is able to predict the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age on an ad hoc basis. If we could do that...then I'd probably be the one saying the science is settled!

 

[werepossum]

No one disagrees with the statement the Earth is warming. I happen to disagree we are in big trouble if the Earth continues to warm. A few more degrees rise will do more good than a few degrees of cooling.

The question is really how much man is contributing to the increase in temperature we have seen over the last 200 years or so. Based on my review of all the science presented in layman's terms, I conclude man has a small role. How much man generated CO2 is a direct contributor to warming is yet to be determined. GCW models are not at all predicting trends accurately.

I'm not sure I agree. Although traditionally mankind overall has prospered during warmer periods, our agriculture is now highly scientific and based on our current climate, with our crops selected and often genetically modified to match that climate. Warmer temperatures with changed rainfall patterns may have less impact than pre-industrialization, but I can also see how potentially they could be significant.

Also, at high enough concentrations CO2 becomes a growth deterrent. Plants respire just as do animals, and while they can liberate their own oxygen via photosynthesis, they also have to use energy to remove the excess CO2. This is not yet an exact science and like everything in climate science studies' results are often contradicted by observed reality, but as CO2 and temperatures increase we may well have to select or modify crop plants to meet those conditions - which will almost necessarily mean lower productivity. I'm not predicting catastrophe, but I see no reason to automatically assume we'll be better off.

One other point - we're seeing increased lethality with fungal and bacteria infections in the wild where warmer temperatures expose populations that previously had little to no exposure. To a large degree this is due to other factors such as pollution and human transmission of pathogenic vectors into non-native areas, but those stressors aren't going away either. It's possible that we could see a crash in wild populations of fauna, perhaps even to below sustainable levels. Again, I'm not predicting catastrophe, but I don't think we can necessarily rule it out either. Increased CO2 may well be the least of the stressors we inflict on the environment, but most of the others are still increasing as well.

 

[Jaskalas]

Careful, you could find yourself dealing with the same issue that the climate scientist have. There are many factors that could change, and cause the earth to heat up. Say the sun starts to pump out more radiation and that causes earth to heat up. You would be incorrect about your predictions, but not wrong about human influence.

That's true, but I've taken my stand on Ocean Cycles. On an increasingly well understood scientific argument. I am not moved by the warming of the 80s and 90s because it lines up perfectly with this argument. It matches the temperature rise and the Ocean Cycles of the 30s and 40s.

If we warm while the Oceans oppose that trend, then we've broken the direct relationship between our temperature record and the Ocean Cycles. I'd need a substantial scientific argument, lined up with empirical evidence, before allowing any other argument to displace CO2.

Oceans > CO2 > Anything else

"Anything else" would have a hell of a lot of scientific explaining to do.

 

[realibrad]

Nobody expects a model that can predict year-to-year...something that predicts decade-to-decade would be a great start. I personally would love to see a model that is able to predict the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age on an ad hoc basis. If we could do that...then I'd probably be the one saying the science is settled!

I would like to have one too, but the ability to explain something that far back within such a narrow scope will be pretty hard with the data we have. The next 20-30 years will be interesting because the data we have been building will be a lot more detailed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I would like to have one too, but the ability to explain something that far back within such a narrow scope will be pretty hard with the data we have. The next 20-30 years will be interesting because the data we have been building will be a lot more detailed.

Agree...proxy data sucks. One look at the Briffa temperature proxies post-1960 undermines their reliability imo.

 

[dphantom]

I'm not sure I agree. Although traditionally mankind overall has prospered during warmer periods, our agriculture is now highly scientific and based on our current climate, with our crops selected and often genetically modified to match that climate. Warmer temperatures with changed rainfall patterns may have less impact than pre-industrialization, but I can also see how potentially they could be significant.

Also, at high enough concentrations CO2 becomes a growth deterrent. Plants respire just as do animals, and while they can liberate their own oxygen via photosynthesis, they also have to use energy to remove the excess CO2. This is not yet an exact science and like everything in climate science studies' results are often contradicted by observed reality, but as CO2 and temperatures increase we may well have to select or modify crop plants to meet those conditions - which will almost necessarily mean lower productivity. I'm not predicting catastrophe, but I see no reason to automatically assume we'll be better off.

One other point - we're seeing increased lethality with fungal and bacteria infections in the wild where warmer temperatures expose populations that previously had little to no exposure. To a large degree this is due to other factors such as pollution and human transmission of pathogenic vectors into non-native areas, but those stressors aren't going away either. It's possible that we could see a crash in wild populations of fauna, perhaps even to below sustainable levels. Again, I'm not predicting catastrophe, but I don't think we can necessarily rule it out either. Increased CO2 may well be the least of the stressors we inflict on the environment, but most of the others are still increasing as well.

At extremes on either end I agree. Perhaps I should say not a few degrees but a continued moderation of temperatures up to some yet to be determined point. I think it obvious if our coastal cities are under water after a 25m rise in sea level, then the costs are huge. But if sea levels drop 25 meters because of cooling, we have a similar problem.

So yes I was given to a bit of hyperbole but it was to make a point, certainly not to blithely think any warming (or cooling) is good when taken to an extreme.

 

[realibrad]

Agree...proxy data sucks. One look at the Briffa temperature proxies post-1960 undermines their reliability imo.

So, do we agree that I at least understand the scientific method?

 

[realibrad]

At extremes on either end I agree. Perhaps I should say not a few degrees but a continued moderation of temperatures up to some yet to be determined point. I think it obvious if our coastal cities are under water after a 25m rise in sea level, then the costs are huge. But if sea levels drop 25 meters because of cooling, we have a similar problem.

So yes I was given to a bit of hyperbole but it was to make a point, certainly not to blithely think any warming (or cooling) is good when taken to an extreme.

You are looking at sea level rise. If you have a city that is 10ft above sea level for 30 miles inland. A rise in the sea level of 10ft would mean 30 miles of reduced coastline. That would be horrific.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, do we agree that I at least understand the scientific method?

Yes...it seems that we do indeed agree on this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are looking at sea level rise. If you have a city that is 10ft above sea level for 30 miles inland. A rise in the sea level of 10ft would mean 30 miles of reduced coastline. That would be horrific.

At 3.5 mm/year....we'll experience "horrific" in about 87 years.

 

[dphantom]

You are looking at sea level rise. If you have a city that is 10ft above sea level for 30 miles inland. A rise in the sea level of 10ft would mean 30 miles of reduced coastline. That would be horrific.

obviously

 

[realibrad]

At 3.5 mm/year....we'll experience "horrific" in about 87 years.

In that time, you are talking about losing 90+% of Miami. Many US coastal cities are just above sea level. There is also the issue of salt water moving upstream mixing in deltas. I know CA has a big problem with this right now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In that time, you are talking about losing 90+% of Miami. Many US coastal cities are just above sea level. There is also the issue of salt water moving upstream mixing in deltas. I know CA has a big problem with this right now.

Ooops...I meant 870 years.

 

[werepossum]

At extremes on either end I agree. Perhaps I should say not a few degrees but a continued moderation of temperatures up to some yet to be determined point. I think it obvious if our coastal cities are under water after a 25m rise in sea level, then the costs are huge. But if sea levels drop 25 meters because of cooling, we have a similar problem.

So yes I was given to a bit of hyperbole but it was to make a point, certainly not to blithely think any warming (or cooling) is good when taken to an extreme.

Understood and agreed.

 

[jhbball]

Longer growing seasons, increased CO2 leading to better crop yields, offset by some rise in sea levels, warmer temps.

And you're pulling this from your gut? Jesus fucking Christ.

 

[bshole]

Ooops...I meant 870 years.

ROFLMFAO!! Isn't it the truth? Because the people of Miami will lack the technology to avoid or mitigate against the deluge?!?!

That is what drives me batty about this debate sometimes. The predictions of doom and destruction that civilization is destined to..... LONG AFTER WE ARE DEAD AND MOLDERING in our graves. Its bad enough that we ignore problems that are harming civilization today, its worse when we enact policies that harm civilization today to avoid some harm that may or may not occur to our great grandchildren 100 years from now.