So I have a quick question about "global warming"

[Brotoro]

Build more nuclear power plants. Avert potential climatological disaster. Easy.

[mdatspace]

snip

I think it is the GW camp who is losing.

First off, they are fighting complacency. Most of the world will do nothing about GW. They may care and acknowledge the issue, but that is as far as it goes.

But I think the biggest issue is polarization. Thanks to politicians like Al and others, the environmental issues of today are more about politics than action. They are now fighting left versus right. This leads to stagnation. Politics is an issue where concessions are not in anybody's vocabulary. They stay put on that issue. That means that the issue is entrenched as the both sides of the field become immovable.

[Sternface]

But I think the biggest issue is polarization. Thanks to politicians like Al and others, the environmental issues of today are more about politics than action. They are now fighting left versus right. This leads to stagnation. Politics is an issue where concessions are not in anybody's vocabulary. They stay put on that issue. That means that the issue is entrenched as the both sides of the field become immovable.

Exactly. Once politics took over, science took a back seat to agenda, PR, and bureaucracy. You're a climatologist who wants to work in the field of climate change? Good luck getting a good job, grant, or promotion unless you work for an agency trying to prove global warming in the affirmative. This is why I find it difficult to come to a conclusion one way or the other - there is so much bias, sensationalism, and ideology to weed out when trying to form an objective opinion.

And then there is the media-bias effect, or more formally, an availability heuristic, which plays a large role in this as well as other sensational and politicized items. Take gun control, for example. If you follow the news, you may be of the opinion that gun-violence and mass shootings are increasing in frequency at an alarming rate. The opposite is true. Gun violence is steadily decreasing, and has been since the 90's. But they sure do love to blast every single one with a story (read: non-gang-related) on the front page.

Climate change is real, and will continue to be real until Earth's core freezes over, and until a weakened magnetic field drops it's protective shield, leaving our atmosphere to be blasted away by the sun. People seem too caught up in this aspect. IE, if climate change then global warming. The issue is our contribution, or lack thereof, and whether or not we are causing the artificial, expediting the inevitable, or having no effect whatsoever.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

Good luck getting a good job, grant, or promotion unless you work for an agency trying to prove global warming in the affirmative.

Two points:

a) There are sever agencies, mainly right wingers and industry, who are very willing to give you money if you can give "counterevidence".

You could also say that it is very hard to get a job as a geologist of you claim the earth is flat and are not trying to prove that sphere conspiracy stuff. This is true, but simply due to the fact that everyone who ever has put some effort into this know that "flat earth" is just nonsense.

[mdatspace]

snip

I don't think it makes evidence wrong. The evidence shows we are the cause. However, the debate has fallen apart as both sides are fighting politics. The other side is doing the same.

[K^2]

The evidence shows we are the cause.

What evidence? Seriously, we wouldn't be having a debate if there was good evidence of anthropogenic climate change. There are fluctuations. There are some suggestive correlations. There are models that suggest that we can cause global climate change. But nothing conclusive on whether it's already happening or if it will happen in near future.

I understand hat it's difficult to meet criteria of rigorous scientific proof when you have no way to control the experiments, nor anywhere near the capability to do a proper simulation, but that's exactly why you shouldn't be writing it off as something we understand. We don't. And the fact that you are under the illusion that it's something that has been established is just another indication of how much the politics has rotten the debate on the topic.

[mdatspace]

snip

I will recant my statement.

But I will continue on. I think global warming has become the sole cause of the environmental movement, and I think the lack of movement to solve it is simple.

It is not imminent. Back at the beginning of the environmentalist movement in the 70's, rivers were on fire, toxic waste everywhere, and people were quite afraid.

Fast forward to now. Many of those problems have been mitigated or no longer exist. The US is a safer(Environmentally)place.

Those issues were imminent threats to Americans. Is GW such an imminent threat?

No. It could be imminent 50 years from now. But it is not ready to wreck havoc now. People are not afraid. People are complacent. No motive to take action will mean no action at all.

[mdatspace]

@Stern You paragraph goes the exact same for the opposition.

The green movement has become one with the democrats, and their opposition has become one with the republicans. The debate descended into the political realm, where there is little regard for fact and science.

[Nibb31]

The funny thing is, the minority of people who seem to be contradicting the international scientific community are one political party in one country, which coincidentally happens to be the party that has stronger ties with the oil industry in the country that burns the most oil.

If you look beyond the borders of your country, you'll see that there is a rather large consensus among the billions of other educated people on Earth that global warming is happening (anthropogenic or not, it doesn't really matter) and we should probably try to do something about it.

[ZetaX]

What evidence? Seriously, we wouldn't be having a debate if there was good evidence of anthropogenic climate change. There are fluctuations. There are some suggestive correlations.

Replace climate by evolution in these sentences... Or to make my point more clear: the fact that someone still tries to refute it is not evidence in any way.

As far as I know, there is not much debate along scientists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) if human caused climate change happens, but just on the exact size. The if-debate is political and politics is not really concerned about facts.

[Alchemist]

The problem is that the actual numbers don't say much:the observed global temperature has risen only by a fraction of degree, besides there are quite some uncertainities, created by some additional effects (like urban "heat island") and even some uncovered falsification cases. Also most feedback factors are difficult to model properly and so there are many completely different models of how it could go further.

But in the end this is not about getting notably warmer everywhere, it's about this small global change strongly affecting local climate (some places might become several degrees cooler, others warmer), and with these rates of climate change much higher than in natural processes.

So "global warming" is not what it really is, it's more of "climate change". Rapid anthropogenic climate change, the actual results of which are almost unpredictable.

[PakledHostage]

The problem is that the actual numbers don't say much:the observed global temperature has risen only by a fraction of degree, besides there are quite some uncertainities, created by some additional effects (like urban "heat island") and even some uncovered falsification cases.

Can you please provide some evidence of "some uncovered falsification cases"?

Climate change deniers like the people at FOX News like to bang the "climategate" drum, but they always omit the detail that the UK parliament's Science and Techology Committee cleared the CRU scientists who were at the centre of "Climategate" of any wrong doing in their report on The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Between the original peer reviews and the inquiries that followed "Climategate", the CRU's work must be among the most heavily scrutinized body of scientific research anywhere.

From the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee's website:

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails "trick" and "hiding the decline" the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

[K^2]

It is not imminent. Back at the beginning of the environmentalist movement in the 70's, rivers were on fire, toxic waste everywhere, and people were quite afraid.

Fast forward to now. Many of those problems have been mitigated or no longer exist. The US is a safer(Environmentally)place.

Yeah, but I don't see the point of scaring population with a dubious global problem when there are very real local problems that can be identified and fixed directly. Effects of human population on local pollution are easy to test. Which means that not only do we know for sure that these problems exist, but we know which actions are causing them, and how bad the impact is. So we know what we should do differently to have a much better local environment at minimal impact to economy.

With global effects, even if I fiat you that we are causing significant damage to global environment, how do you decide what reasonable limitations to our activities are? No two models agree on how much is too much, and as I've pointed out, many models suggest that we aren't even close to doing significant damage. These are the models that I find more believable. So how do we decide on the plan of action?

Environmental movement should have stuck with local climate. That's where they have done a lot of good, and where a lot of good can still be done.

Replace climate by evolution in these sentences...

Not even close. Evolution was predicted based on general taxonomy, then confirmed with archaeological findings, and beyond doubt confirmed with genetics. Moreover, there are controlled experiments in the field of genetics that test evolution.

You will not find a serious biologist, who is not a complete crackpot, that has doubts of evolution. Environmental community is split. Yes, over 90% of publications are saying that humans are causing global climate change. Unfortunately, very few of these are in agreement on exactly how this effect works. Most of these papers are just total tripe.

Lets do it this way. You point me to a specific paper, and we talk about the specific claims of the paper. That's how scientific debate works. Saying, "97% of scientists agree..." sounds like a toothpaste commercial.

I've looked for good papers on climate. I have not found a single analysis that holds water both computationally and in terms of its assumptions that suggests that we can currently cause significant change to global temperatures. If you find me such a paper, I will do a 180° turn on the spot.

I am a scientist, and as a scientist, I'll only change my position based on evidence. Not peer or political pressure. Unfortunately, this is a dying trend among scientists these days.

[drakesdoom]

I am a scientist, and as a scientist, I'll only change my position based on evidence. Not peer or political pressure. Unfortunately, scientists are a dying breed these days.

Fixed

Now go listen to some "Muddy Waters" for message length.

[ZetaX]

My previous statement also still holds: those are experts on their fields, so they are likely to have vastly more knowledge on this than I do. Science indeed works as you said, but there is also the point of learning all the required theories first. I just see no point in me doing this, as doing this instead of me is exactly what an expert exists for. Those experts already agreed before it was a political question, as climate change is not just ten years old.

There will definitely be tons of assumptions and simplifications, thus allowing you to point out that this and that is somewhat insufficient. But this is a problem with all sciences that are hard to repeat or not possible put in a controlled small environment (medicine, psychology, some aspects of biology, ...). You can't use the full strength of the physics meaning of "proof" there, as this is beyond the scope of human abilities for now and probably for quite some time to come, and its usage would just do one thing: stall all scientific advances in those areas.

Climate scientists invent models for how climate works, then test what happens with and without human "intervention", and the general result is that the latter causes a significant effect in most models; these tests are one of the ways to actually verify things: run a simulation and compare with what actually happenes/-d. If they work sufficiently well to predict at least the most relevant effects and generally agree between different simplifications, then I claim that this is evidence enough. Things might get a bit different, though, if they actively adapt to simply fit the results, but apart from such claims by "climategate" I have not seen evidence of this actually happening.

[K^2]

Science indeed works as you said, but there is also the point of learning all the required theories first.

Yup. Thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, fluid dynamics. I'm not an expert on weather or ecology, of course, but I've studied all the necessary basics as part of my curriculum. That's why I can actually read these papers and gauge their reliability. And like I said, I have not seen anything that would convince me that we have good evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Don't get me wrong, there is no solid evidence to the contrary, either. But lacking good evidence either way, I can't recommend an action against status quo.

So for the time being, I would say we should look after local environment, assume that's what is good for local environment is good for global environment too, and not panic until we have good enough models to address the issue directly. Going by how the computer models have been evolving, we'll know for sure in ten to twenty years, because we'll be able to model global environment with sufficient precision. There is definitely no way in hell we'll manage to do irreversible damage in a decade, so lets just wait.

[PakledHostage]

So for the time being, I would say we should look after local environment, assume that's what is good for local environment is good for global environment too, and not panic until we have good enough models to address the issue directly.

I agree. And I think a lot of other environmentally minded people would agree as well.

And while we're at it, we should encourage our governments to support continued progress towards alternative energy. As I said in a previous post in this thread, money spent developing safer and more efficient alternative energy solutions pumps the economy and ensures that we will have options when the oil and coal eventually do run out. The best evidence we currently have suggests that it also helps protect a very valuable resource: biodiversity. It isn’t wasted. Development of alternative energy requires scientists, engineers and manufacturing jobs. Those are all things that, I'm sure, the members of this forum will benefit from.

[K^2]

And while we're at it, we should encourage our governments to support continued progress towards alternative energy. As I said in a previous post in this thread, money spent developing safer and more efficient alternative energy solutions pumps the economy and ensures that we will have options when the oil and coal eventually do run out. The best evidence we currently have suggests that it also helps protect a very valuable resource: biodiversity. It isn’t wasted. Development of alternative energy requires scientists, engineers and manufacturing jobs. Those are all things that, I'm sure, the members of this forum will benefit from.

We absolutely should be investing in alternative energy sources. Even if we don't run environmental risks, and even if we aren't risking running out of fossil fuels any time soon, which with development of hydraulic fracturing seems more likely now, we still can't rely on fossil fuels indefinitely. Most of our technology is energy-density limited, and energy density of gasoline is fixed.

The problem is that fear mongering can be used to harm the oil industry directly. If we develop better energy sources and oil industry dies, good riddance. But if we start suffocating it now artificially, we are suffocating entire economy, doing loads of damage to the technology sector, and that's where almost all of our money for research is coming from.

This is simple strategy. Like it or not, we are relying on oil too much right now to do absolutely anything without it. If we give up burning hydrocarbons, most of the world's population will simply starve to death because we cannot sustain agriculture without this input. If this damages the environment, well, that's too bad, but we simply can't stop it. What we can do is try to get past this phase of oil dependence, and the best way to do this is to have as much money diverted to research as possible, which requires a strong, healthy economy. If stimulating economy means relaxing some of the restraints and producing more CO2 emissions in the short term, I say it's worth the risk. Fossil fuels are pretty much the only shot our civilization has of making a leap from agricultural society to a true post-industrial, and if we screw this up, the next opportunity will be millions of years from now.

[ZetaX]

There is definitely no way in hell we'll manage to do irreversible damage in a decade, so lets just wait.

Irreversible¿ No almost definitely not. Extremely costly¿ Easily possible. And that's why we might want to intervene as early as possible.

We are talking about putting, say, another 10% of its current CO_2 content into the atmosphere in the next decade. If we then start trying to reverse the effects, we will not only start 10 years later, but will also have to deal with more to get rid of/get to live with. I am all in for holding a status quo if that means keeping the CO_2 at the same level until we know better what exactly is going on. But just continuing and even increasing the output until we know every detail sounds naive to me.

The potential costs, not even counting possible deaths, just money, are quite high. Regarding the actual costs when not knowing any more details we should work with the expected value. Thus if we assign climate change a chance of 20% to actually being aviodable/reducable by us strongly reducing emissions, we have to half those potential costs/the potential savings. And I expect those then still to be well over a trillion dollars. So the question can also be put as this: is the expected value of the costs of climate change lower or higher than the expected value of this or that countermeasure. And I am confident that at least for the cheaper ones (e.g. fuel efficient cars, more non-carbon-based power plants [well, I also see some cost problems with nuclear ones in the very long, so this would at least be tricky]) this is true.

[Sternface]

@Stern You paragraph goes the exact same for the opposition.

The green movement has become one with the democrats, and their opposition has become one with the republicans. The debate descended into the political realm, where there is little regard for fact and science.

Yep. Both sides share the fallacies equally.

Don't get me wrong, I am not out to prove that GW isn't real..... all I meant was that I do not know, and that there is not enough evidence for myself to come to a solid conclusion, just as K^2 said.

I hope it's wrong, obviously, but hope and fact are two different things.

[mdatspace]

Yep. Both sides share the fallacies equally.

Don't get me wrong, I am not out to prove that GW isn't real..... all I meant was that I do not know, and that there is not enough evidence for myself to come to a solid conclusion, just as K^2 said.

I hope it's wrong, obviously, but hope and fact are two different things.

None of us know.

[Sternface]

If you look beyond the borders of your country, you'll see that there is a rather large consensus among the billions of other educated people on Earth that global warming is happening (anthropogenic or not, it doesn't really matter) and we should probably try to do something about it.

I hear you Nibb, but therein lies the problem. There is a consensus that climate change is occurring.... and of course it is. That's as easily seen as the fact that gravity tends to pull downwards. Earth is geologically active, and such is the nature of a geologically dynamic ecosystem. But whether or not it is caused by humans is important. If we are having very little effect, then there isn't much we can do. The opposite is true if we are having an effect.

[mdatspace]

I agree. And I think a lot of other environmentally minded people would agree as well.

And while we're at it, we should encourage our governments to support continued progress towards alternative energy. As I said in a previous post in this thread, money spent developing safer and more efficient alternative energy solutions pumps the economy and ensures that we will have options when the oil and coal eventually do run out. The best evidence we currently have suggests that it also helps protect a very valuable resource: biodiversity. It isn’t wasted. Development of alternative energy requires scientists, engineers and manufacturing jobs. Those are all things that, I'm sure, the members of this forum will benefit from.

I agree. We will have little to go to if oil and coal runs out. Thus, it is a good idea to develop alternative energy before said fuels run out.

Yeah, but I don't see the point of scaring population with a dubious global problem when there are very real local problems that can be identified and fixed directly. Effects of human population on local pollution are easy to test. Which means that not only do we know for sure that these problems exist, but we know which actions are causing them, and how bad the impact is. So we know what we should do differently to have a much better local environment at minimal impact to economy.

I think we can agree. I dislike fear-mongering, even if it is to raise awareness about a problem. I think your last part is important. We cannot help the environment and disregard economics, and we cannot do the opposite. I think sustainability is a noble goal.

[K^2]

And that's why we might want to intervene as early as possible.

We are talking about putting, say, another 10% of its current CO_2 content into the atmosphere in the next decade. If we then start trying to reverse the effects, we will not only start 10 years later, but will also have to deal with more to get rid of/get to live with. I am all in for holding a status quo if that means keeping the CO_2 at the same level until we know better what exactly is going on. But just continuing and even increasing the output until we know every detail sounds naive to me.

We do know the cost of not putting any more CO2 into atmosphere. It's worldwide starvation. We can maybe, maybe, stop the rate of output growing. And that would still be at a great cost to economy.

You are putting potential long term dangers of going along the route we are in against absolutely real and devastating short term costs of veering off this path. And to support it, you put forward research you yourself do not understand. Now tell me, how in the world does that make sense?

Do you understand that when you place additional regulations on CO2 output, you effectively increase cost of all energy resources? Do you understand that it translates to scarcity of food? Do you understand that it leads to immediate cost of lives worldwide? That's what you are advocating based on second-hand data you got from people who make careers on scaring people with global disasters.

Damage we can do in a decade, if it's real, can be fixed without cost to human lives. We'll be in the position to understand the environment and to switch some of our infrastructure to alternative energy. This is not where we are right now. We don't know if the problem is real for sure, we certainly do not understand how extensive it is and how to address it, and we are just starting to build the infrastructure for alternative energy. The absolutely best thing that everyone can do right now is sit tight until we know what we are dealing with.

Edited November 23, 2013 by K^2

[ZetaX]

@Sternface: Then what would you need as evidence¿

I think I understand what K^2 wants as evidence, but would you like him want to (and be able to; as said above, it needs a nontrivial amount of knowledge) check several scientific papers¿