Please Help Me Get Up To Speed About Climate Change

[Bo T]

Next week I'm going to be a guest on a show. Apparently, the main topic of discussion is going to be climate change. Climate change is not an area of expertise for me, so I'm hoping you all who are well informed and have strong opinions on the topic can help me become at least somewhat better informed before next Friday night. I expect the "Pro" side of the argument (i.e., "People are causing dangerous climate change") is going to be well covered by others, so it would probably be more helpful to be mainly informed about the contrary side of the argument ("People are not causing dangerous climate change") - though I welcome rational, high-quality data, science, reasoning, etc., on both sides.

Thank you for any help you can provide.

- Mike

In these discussions I start out with the simplest analysis possible. Based upon the best measurements we have, is the amount of ice on our planet increasing, decreasing, or staying the same when measured annually over the last several decades? If the answer is decreasing then we are currently in a period of global warming. What effects does mankind have on this warming? We are fairly certain that we do have an effect. Some are fairly well documented, i.e. cities cause a localized increase temperature. Others not so much. So, the best thought that I have is; our existance probably causes the current warming trend to take place faster than it would have without us. Am I willing to give up existance to find out how much, no. My best analogy is investing money at a certain interest rate. Mankinds actions just raises that interest rate. How much? I don't have any idea. My belief is that the earth is warming, but it is warming faster due to our actions than it would without our actions. Note that this does not take into account any of the effects of supervolcanoes, massive forest fires, war, or the multitude of events that could change global warming into global cooling.

[timcsaw]

In these discussions I start out with the simplest analysis possible. Based upon the best measurements we have, is the amount of ice on our planet increasing, decreasing, or staying the same when measured annually over the last several decades? If the answer is decreasing then we are currently in a period of global warming. What effects does mankind have on this warming? We are fairly certain that we do have an effect. Some are fairly well documented, i.e. cities cause a localized increase temperature. Others not so much. So, the best thought that I have is; our existance probably causes the current warming trend to take place faster than it would have without us. Am I willing to give up existance to find out how much, no. My best analogy is investing money at a certain interest rate. Mankinds actions just raises that interest rate. How much? I don't have any idea. My belief is that the earth is warming, but it is warming faster due to our actions than it would without our actions. Note that this does not take into account any of the effects of supervolcanoes, massive forest fires, war, or the multitude of events that could change global warming into global cooling.

Nicely put. I wonder how much CO2 is being released into the "climate" from those burns down south of you? Forests hold a whole lot of CO2.

[lepto]

No.

Would you characterize your failure to answer simple questions posed to you as ignorance or obfuscation?

What is the age of the oldest climate data that has been or is being examined in the scientific examination of the phenomenon known as global warming?

I don't know. A million years?

[BlackKnight86]

I don't know. A million years?

Excellent guess. An ice sample was taken by Japanese scientists from a depth of 9,994 feet into the Antarctic ice sheet near Fuji Dome. It is believed to be roughly 1 million years old.

In addition, given that climate data prior to the point records were kept is not possible to measure directly, it must be extrapolated from evidence of that data present in fossil and geological evidence. Ice core samples supposedly give the most direct record, because of changes in two oxygen isotopes, nitrate compounds, dust, and pollen that get trapped in ice. Life form evidence only provides the life form's reaction to the change; so more assumption is necessary.

The age of the Earth is accepted as about 4.5 Billion years old. The Japanese ice core sample represents the last 1000000/4500000000, or 0.02% of the last part of the Earth's life span....a fraction of a percent. That is not a significant enough sample size to accurately model the planet's climate cycles, especially with regards to prediction. Moreover, fossil record data indicates that there were significant global warming and cooling events during the Miocene, long before humans appeared.

The point is, there are too many uncertainties and variables for this matter to be "settled". Real scientists know that.

[timcsaw]

Excellent guess. An ice sample was taken by Japanese scientists from a depth of 9,994 feet into the Antarctic ice sheet near Fuji Dome. It is believed to be roughly 1 million years old.

In addition, given that climate data prior to the point records were kept is not possible to measure directly, it must be extrapolated from evidence of that data present in fossil and geological evidence. Ice core samples supposedly give the most direct record, because of changes in two oxygen isotopes, nitrate compounds, dust, and pollen that get trapped in ice. Life form evidence only provides the life form's reaction to the change; so more assumption is necessary.

The age of the Earth is accepted as about 4.5 Billion years old. The Japanese ice core sample represents the last 1000000/4500000000, or 0.02% of the last part of the Earth's life span....a fraction of a percent. That is not a significant enough sample size to accurately model the planet's climate cycles, especially with regards to prediction. Moreover, fossil record data indicates that there were significant global warming and cooling events during the Miocene, long before humans appeared.

The point is, there are too many uncertainties and variables for this matter to be "settled". Real scientists know that.

S'wat I been sayin'.... see the attached thumbnail in my post #27.

[BlackKnight86]

S'wat I been sayin'.... see the attached thumbnail in my post #27.

I know, Tim. One would think it would only have to be said once.

However.....

[lepto]

Excellent guess. An ice sample was taken by Japanese scientists from a depth of 9,994 feet into the Antarctic ice sheet near Fuji Dome. It is believed to be roughly 1 million years old.

In addition, given that climate data prior to the point records were kept is not possible to measure directly, it must be extrapolated from evidence of that data present in fossil and geological evidence. Ice core samples supposedly give the most direct record, because of changes in two oxygen isotopes, nitrate compounds, dust, and pollen that get trapped in ice. Life form evidence only provides the life form's reaction to the change; so more assumption is necessary.

The age of the Earth is accepted as about 4.5 Billion years old. The Japanese ice core sample represents the last 1000000/4500000000, or 0.02% of the last part of the Earth's life span....a fraction of a percent. That is not a significant enough sample size to accurately model the planet's climate cycles, especially with regards to prediction. Moreover, fossil record data indicates that there were significant global warming and cooling events during the Miocene, long before humans appeared.

The point is, there are too many uncertainties and variables for this matter to be "settled". Real scientists know that.

I haven't really kept up with the subject since Exxon entered the fray and the conspiracy theories started to pop up so I have to admit to a certain level of ignorance. Are the vast majority of climate scientists still supporting the notion that global warming is man made?

[UffDa]

I haven't really kept up with the subject since Exxon entered the fray and the conspiracy theories started to pop up so I have to admit to a certain level of ignorance. Are the vast majority of climate scientists still supporting the notion that global warming is man made?

Only the stubborn ones or those getting paid to do so. (IMHO, of course)

[Evolute]

We just finished recording the show. Just to let you know how it went:

We got way off topic. The climatologist never got to talk about global warming. I never got to promote my book, either.

Not at all a bad experience, but not a pointed one, either. Pretty typical of shows, I suppose.

[timcsaw]

We just finished recording the show. Just to let you know how it went:

We got way off topic. The climatologist never got to talk about global warming. I never got to promote my book, either.

Not at all a bad experience, but not a pointed one, either. Pretty typical of shows, I suppose.

Glad you enjoyed it. Being on "the TV" never goes how you'd expect. Wait till you see the finished product after it comes out of Edit! I once sat rolling tape with CNN for 8 hours and saw about 2 minutes used on air.

[BlackKnight86]

I haven't really kept up with the subject since Exxon entered the fray and the conspiracy theories started to pop up so I have to admit to a certain level of ignorance. Are the vast majority of climate scientists still supporting the notion that global warming is man made?

Why do you persist in the flawed belief that science is some kind of specialized electoral college, where once a person becomes a scientist he gets a "vote"?

The number of people are irrelevant. There is only one discriminator in determining the correctness of a position - the argument behind it. Is the argument valid? Is it accurate? Is it complete? Nothing else matters.

And we're all really starting to OD on the "conspiracy theory" nonsense. If you disagree with a theory, either present facts to refute it or keep it to yourself. But stop wasting bandwidth on that logical illiteracy.

[lepto]

Why do you persist in the flawed belief that science is some kind of specialized electoral college, where once a person becomes a scientist he gets a "vote"?

The number of people are irrelevant. There is only one discriminator in determining the correctness of a position - the argument behind it. Is the argument valid? Is it accurate? Is it complete? Nothing else matters.

And we're all really starting to OD on the "conspiracy theory" nonsense. If you disagree with a theory, either present facts to refute it or keep it to yourself. But stop wasting bandwidth on that logical illiteracy.

So, I take it your answers is, "Yes, the overwhelming majority of climatologists still think the world is experience man-made global warming." Unlike yourself, I'm not a climatologist so I am constrained to listen to those who are more educated in that field than myself. I quite understand that one person can be right when thousands are wrong, especially so in science, but I also know, when the research is ongoing and the overwhelming majority don't seem to be changing their opinion, that following the lead of the majority may be the smart move.

As to conspiracy theories I've heard the old "liberals are using global warming to usher in socialism" or some such jive mostly here in this forum. I'm just repeating what appears to be the general consensus among laypersons hereabouts. I'm excepting you as a climatologist and, from the use of all those $3 words, too smart a gentleman to believe in such nonsense.

As to bandwidth, I will continue to waste as much as I wish. I might add your "barrel of vinegar" school of persuasion is working well; I've formed some definite impressions.

[BlackKnight86]

So, I take it your answers is, "Yes, the overwhelming majority of climatologists still think the world is experience man-made global warming." Unlike yourself, I'm not a climatologist so I am constrained to listen to those who are more educated in that field than myself. I quite understand that one person can be right when thousands are wrong, especially so in science, but I also know, when the research is ongoing and the overwhelming majority don't seem to be changing their opinion, that following the lead of the majority may be the smart move.

As to conspiracy theories I've heard the old "liberals are using global warming to usher in socialism" or some such jive mostly here in this forum. I'm just repeating what appears to be the general consensus among laypersons hereabouts. I'm excepting you as a climatologist and, from the use of all those $3 words, too smart a gentleman to believe in such nonsense.

As to bandwidth, I will continue to waste as much as I wish. I might add your "barrel of vinegar" school of persuasion is working well; I've formed some definite impressions.

My answer is the same that it has always been: I don't give a $#^% what a majority of anything thinks; and I have too much respect for myself to blindly listen to anyone who cannot support what they maintain is true, regardless of their "credentials". I recommend you try it....climatology is common earth science, not physics. The difficulty is in the complexity, not in the concept.

As for conspiracy theories, you are obviously studying the wrong ones. You should try the "War on Women" conspiracy theory, or the "Blood for Oil" conspiracy theory, to see the real nut-jobs.

[lepto]

My answer is the same that it has always been: I don't give a $#^% what a majority of anything thinks; and I have too much respect for myself to blindly listen to anyone who cannot support what they maintain is true, regardless of their "credentials". I recommend you try it....climatology is common earth science, not physics. The difficulty is in the complexity, not in the concept.

As for conspiracy theories, you are obviously studying the wrong ones. You should try the "War on Women" conspiracy theory, or the "Blood for Oil" conspiracy theory, to see the real nut-jobs.

Ah, but as a climatologist you are clearly smarter than the average bear. I think I'll stick with the majority of climate experts as to this life or death issue. I'm curious, however, why you think your colleagues, who apparently constitute the majority of the worlds climate scientists, think humans are causing global warming?

[BlackKnight86]

Ah, but as a climatologist you are clearly smarter than the average bear. I think I'll stick with the majority of climate experts as to this life or death issue. I'm curious, however, why you think your colleagues, who apparently constitute the majority of the worlds climate scientists, think humans are causing global warming?

I'm not the one pretending to know why other people think what they think. You should ask Madame Blavotsky.

[lepto]

I'm not the one pretending to know why other people think what they think. You should ask Madame Blavotsky.

I don't have access to Madame Blavatsky, however, I do keep a Magic 8 Ball on my desk just for situations like this, and..... "Signs Point To 'Yes', Blacknight86 Believes The Liberal/Global Warming Conspiracy Theories Else Why Would He Dodge The Question?"

[timcsaw]

I'm curious, however, why you think your colleagues, who apparently constitute the majority of the worlds climate scientists, think humans are causing global warming?

The word "causing" is where your argument falls down... had you said "contributing", I might have agreed. (Elephant farts also "contribute" without "causing".)

[BlackKnight86]

I don't have access to Madame Blavatsky, however, I do keep a Magic 8 Ball on my desk just for situations like this, and..... "Signs Point To 'Yes', Blacknight86 Believes The Liberal/Global Warming Conspiracy Theories Else Why Would He Dodge The Question?"

Acknowledging its irrelevance is not a dodge, Lepto. I don't know why you are so obsessed with "why"...I am not; because it doesn't matter. All that matters is the essence of the argument. I have very clearly stated my position, that there are too many unknown variables, which your "scientists" cannot or will not address, for the matter to be settled; and that unsettled matters are part of the many things that make bad law. Which word of that position is causing you undue confusion?

Your glib comments and poorly delivered bait aside, you clearly have no other response than, "well, people much smarter than me say so...guess it must be so!" Hey, if that's what you think, then by all means, put on your halter and hitch yourself up with the rest of the team. I hope the driver's whip is not too heavy.

[lepto]

Acknowledging its irrelevance is not a dodge, Lepto. I don't know why you are so obsessed with "why"...I am not; because it doesn't matter. All that matters is the essence of the argument. I have very clearly stated my position, that there are too many unknown variables, which your "scientists" cannot or will not address, for the matter to be settled; and that unsettled matters are part of the many things that make bad law. Which word of that position is causing you undue confusion?

Your glib comments and poorly delivered bait aside, you clearly have no other response than, "well, people much smarter than me say so...guess it must be so!" Hey, if that's what you think, then by all means, put on your halter and hitch yourself up with the rest of the team. I hope the driver's whip is not too heavy.

Oh, but the "why" is where the fun stuff is located in these types of discussions. So, you aren't willing to go with what, 97% of the world's climate scientists, because they are too dumb to figure out what you have so easily discerned? Yeah, I would say the "why" of your argument is EXTREMELY relevant and goes to the heart of such an outrageous position. Say, do you think Fast and Furious was really a failed attempt at promoting gun control here in the US?

[BlackKnight86]

Oh, but the "why" is where the fun stuff is located in these types of discussions. So, you aren't willing to go with what, 97% of the world's climate scientists, because they are too dumb to figure out what you have so easily discerned? Yeah, I would say the "why" of your argument is EXTREMELY relevant and goes to the heart of such an outrageous position. Say, do you think Fast and Furious was really a failed attempt at promoting gun control here in the US?

I'm throwing the Brown Flag on this play. "97%"? I don't think you have any foundation for that figure; you're just pulling numbers out of your backside, now. How many climatologists are there in the world? Who designated them climatologists? Have you vetted their credentials? Have you taken the poll; or do you have the poll results? Have you examined their data? What, if any, kind of verification have you done to make the decision that you accept their conclusions? What, if anything, are you doing besides parroting what you've heard from some unspecified source?

However, you apparently think I should just accept it....simply because you do? Sorry, but I have more self-respect than that.

The "fun stuff"? For whom? What if the "why" is because they're delusional? Is that "fun"? Perhaps from a sociologist's or a psychologist's perspective....sort of a study of "Stupid Human Tricks". The problem is, there is an overabundance of examples of human beings being stupid, or treacherous, or conniving; so I tend to bore rather easily with yet another one, especially a lame one that is being used to drive public policy. Then, it's not only stupid, it's dangerous.

The "fun stuff" for me in these types of discussions is the intellectual stimulation that comes from digging deep into a topic and analyzing the underlying facts, not trying to figure out why some individual thinks the way he does...which by the way is nothing but guesswork when one has no insight into the inner workings of his mind. Unless, of course, you have an account with Madame Blavutsky and have divined their reasons "why" via her crystal ball. Or perhaps you're using your Magic 8 Ball?

Yeah....I can't understand why I wouldn't unquestioningly accept your position, either.....

And, yes, of course I think that F/F is a failed attempt at promoting gun control here in the US. "Why"? Because I'm not naive. It's a trust issue: Lord Obama the Generous is a d-bag. He has demonstrated that fact numerous times, in everything he's done, not just F/F. I don't care what he SAYS he's trying to do; I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Looks like a lot of other people feel the same way. If he has a problem with that, he has no one to blame but himself...next time, he should do what he promised he would when he conned people into voting for him and be a LEADER, not a politician.

But you are missing the point....again. I DON'T CARE "WHY" he did F/F; I care that he was incompetent, careless, and that he broke the law; and now I care that he is just as imperial as Richard Nixon in thinking he's above the law. Those are two separate issues.