So I have a quick question about "global warming"

[lajoswinkler]

Just a bit of info - recently Arctic has lost its structural stability. It has melted enough lose rigidity completely. There was still ice, but not in a form of vast plate. It is expected that this behaviour will happen again and again, with less ice plates/blocks remaining as the years pass.

Also, one great animation for our "it's getting colder" "skeptics".

[Sternface]

^ So what you are saying is that skeptics form a conclusion from ~10 years trends, but realists form a conclusion from ~40 year trends?

Kinda sounds the same to me. 40 years isn't much better than 10 on a geological climate timescale.

Look at the scale of the Y axis. A whopping 0.5 degree difference. Without much larger context, I find it difficult to draw a conclusion. A 0.5 degree fluctuation over 42 years doesn't sound very conclusive to me. Especially without having a much longer period of data for comparison, and for establishing normative deviations.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

Now you are starting to cherry pick¿ 40 is still more than 10 (and the 10 you choose earlier was one of the most extreme ones in being nonincreasing), and definitely more relevant because of being larger. You also forget the models again, which are generally in agreement with all that.

[Sternface]

Now you are starting to cherry pick¿ 40 is still more than 10 (and the 10 you choose earlier was one of the most extreme ones in being nonincreasing), and definitely more relevant because of being larger. You also forget the models again, which are generally in agreement with all that.

I'm not cherry picking at all. My position is no conclusion one way or the other. I do not think Global warming is false any more than I think it is real. My point is that there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion one way or the other.

40 is better than 10. But that's a false dichotomy. I say both are insufficient.

P.S. You sure about the models being in agreement? According to whom? I read otherwise. Google "global warming model" and see for yourself.

Or read this: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval) 1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models (see Supplementary Information).

These models generally simulate natural variability  including that associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions  as well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon, for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability.

By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average).

The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a). The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).

For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period  not significantly different from zero  suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming 2–4.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

40 is better than 10. But that's a false dichotomy. I say both are insufficient.

That has nothing to do with the dichotomy, but it was you who used the 10 years to begin with. You now seem to claim that any amount of data we can have now and in the near future will not be sufficient to convince you, as it is not spanning millenia (or whatever time frame you are tinking of). This is obviously the reason why we have to extrapolate and in that to try to do it as accurately as possible, but it's not a good reason to simply wait and do nothing. There are several countermeasures that are not too expensive (definitely not at the level of threatening any food supply) and to use those would at least give us a bit more of an margin to life with. It is simply not necessary to have a good chunk of that CO_2, it is simply inconvenient not to. And as I explained earlier, you will have to use the expected value of the costs, and that exists even if climate change is not granted but only probable with some probability.

[Drunken Hobo]

If there is any real doubt over global warming, why aren't the oil companies shouting it from the rooftops?

[Fractal_UK]

@ Fractal_UK: I will side with K^2 here on the matter of the medieval societies not having much impact due to not burning any reasonable amounts of (former) biomatter. At least, I don't see how this should work and have also never heard of that before. Any evidence please¿

I think you may have missed my point. I didn't say I agreed with the idea, in fact, I explicitly stated I found the idea unlikely; that does not change the fact the idea has been suggested.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/EI157.1

I don't dispute the idea that these societies would've had some impact, any change in the level of CO₂ output requires a corresponding change in the level of CO₂ sequestration from the atmosphere otherwise otherall levels will tend to move either upward or downward. Thus, if you have more humans burning fuels and clearing forests, you're likely to increase atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ even if the amount you increase it by is trivially small. At some point though, these changes, due to both increasing population and increasing fuel use per capita will expand to the point at which they are no longer trivial.

Finally, despite a number of "skeptic" posts since my comments, I've heard no answer to my requirement that additional negative feedbacks be explained to dismiss even the positive feedbacks I described, nevermind the existing warming the ideal greenhouse model describes as a lower bound. Without doing this, climate sensitivity must be higher than this value, it is really quite simple.

[magnemoe]

If there is any real doubt over global warming, why aren't the oil companies shouting it from the rooftops?

Why should they? First they are obviously biased so making a lot of noise would be counter productive.

Secondly its not their main concern.

They earn on gas replacing coal, the marked is international and its not an lack of demand for oil non any real process to reduce it.

[Sternface]

Fractal, I just put two and two together and realized that you are the creator of one of my favorite mods here. Definitely the most thought-out and immersive, especially for a nuke geek like myself.

Now I feel silly for arguing. lol

I'll take a closer look at your previous stance. I am definitely a skeptic though.... still trying to come to a conclusion on it - my mind is far from made.

Just installed the update, so excuse me while I fire up KSP.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

I don't dispute the idea that these societies would've had some impact, any change in the level of CO₂ output requires a corresponding change in the level of CO₂ sequestration from the atmosphere otherwise otherall levels will tend to move either upward or downward.

While I believe without even seeing any evidence that such a feedback loop exists, I don't even think it is necessary: unless you start also using the vast reserves of carbon in the ground (aka coal, natural gas and oil; and maybe methane) the sequestration can stay the same as the output will sooner or later adapt to the lack of more trees to burn (europe once had way more forests for example, which were destroyed to make place for e.g. farming and housing; some of that carbin then went into the atmosphere). Theoretically, this also applies to the current dilemma, but we are talking about much more carbon, thus making the result more dangerous.

[magnemoe]

I now have also looked up the ice. The reason simply is that you have to distinguish between land ice and sea ice, see for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm .

As climate change also causes more extreme weathers (e.g. by the Golf stream failing) winters in antarctica could easily become colder than ever, especially at the sea with the warm water from the equator comming in at a decreased rate. Also, if you still insist on the ice not really melting: where does the rising sea level come from then¿ the glaciers outside the poles do not really store that much ice anymore.

Antarctica gain ice then moist air reach the antarctic highland. Note that most of Antarctica is dry as Sahara, just millimeters with snow each year. Antarctica loose ice as its pushed into the sea.

Increasing the temperature around Antarctica should increase the ice thickness as you get more humidity, lots of sea ice around it and the snow will fall on it.

How much ice fall into the sea depend on the ice thickness as thicker ice will move faster.

Yes you also have ice going directly into vapor this increases with higher temperature, dryer air and more sunlight, however its an decent chance that this will fall down on the highlands again.

In short, its very plausible that Antarctica will gain more ice if it become warmer, this ice will go back to the sea 50-1000 years from now.

Where is the sea rising? Note I talk about sea rising, not land getting lower as you pump out the ground water,

Note that IPCC talked about an 20 cm sea level increase in 2100. An raising sea level will show up pretty equal all over.

[Fractal_UK]

Fractal, I just put two and two together and realized that you are the creator of one of my favorite mods here. Definitely the most thought-out and immersive, especially for a nuke geek like myself.

Now I feel silly for arguing. lol

I'll take a closer look at your previous stance. I am definitely a skeptic though.... still trying to come to a conclusion on it - my mind is far from made.

Just installed the update, so excuse me while I fire up KSP.

Haha, thanks. The interest in nuclear power is very much related to my stance on climate change, I find it hard to understand people who are both genuinely concerned about environmental matters and anti-nuclear. That said, even ignoring climate change completely, I think there are still enough advantages to make it worth pursuing.

Anyway, debate is healthy and I don't think anyone with a scientific interest in the subject should be worried about debate. That said, it is a subject that tends to cause heated debate (pun intended), but it is also one where vested interests are very much at play - you need only look at the typical sources and, where possible funding, of denialist sources. Most amusingly, Koch industries contributed funding to a recent well publicised study lead by a researcher who was initially quite sceptical about climate change, mainly due to some of the research methodologies used by some climate research groups, but his team discovered over the course of their research that the conclusions of those other research groups appeared broadly correct.

[ZetaX]

Where is the sea rising? Note I talk about sea rising, not land getting lower as you pump out the ground water,

This is a very well know phenomenon, are you seriously claiming it not to happen¿ Simply from the wikipedia on it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png .

Also, your claim of a warmer antarctica getting more ice (it does not by the data linked before) by higher humidity sounds unfounded, any evidence please¿

[qeveren]

Man, Dunning-Kruger is in full effect in this thread.

[ZetaX]

If making such claims it would be much more helpful if you would point out where and why this applies.

[lajoswinkler]

Can anyone please explain to me why are the global warming denialism variations ("there is no GW" and "we have no effect") so popular in USA? You only hear Americans talking about it. Why is that? The rest of the world pretty much acknowledges the problems. Here in Europe that denialism is much more quiet, mostly tied to known crackpots, and the general public opinion is that the climate is changing and that the world's most powerful carbon chuggers are the most responsible for it, therefore mankind has an obvious effect.

Is it because USA is the worst developed country when it comes to carbon footprint, so the citizens have nobody "above" to look in anger, so they are faced with acceptance that it's their country that has done lots of harm? I think it might be it.

[magnemoe]

Can anyone please explain to me why are the global warming denialism variations ("there is no GW" and "we have no effect") so popular in USA? You only hear Americans talking about it. Why is that? The rest of the world pretty much acknowledges the problems. Here in Europe that denialism is much more quiet, mostly tied to known crackpots, and the general public opinion is that the climate is changing and that the world's most powerful carbon chuggers are the most responsible for it, therefore mankind has an obvious effect.

Is it because USA is the worst developed country when it comes to carbon footprint, so the citizens have nobody "above" to look in anger, so they are faced with acceptance that it's their country that has done lots of harm? I think it might be it.

Multiple reasons, one is that media tend to bring forward the load mouthed extremists. More right wing press who will put forward hard core deniers also from reason above. Add that the US don't have the CO2 tax scam so the deniers want to prevent it. In Europe its pretty much an lost case as its very hard to remove taxes.

Its also obvious the global warming politic will not go past the scam level. I call it scam as the politic has no calculated effect on global warming, yes it might have other benefits, everything from more money for the government to better air quality.

The politicians signed a lots of deals then dropped them then they found it would be very expensive compared to the economic crisis we have been trough.

All realistic politicians know this however it would be very political incorrect to say so, solution is to talk about other stuff.

Look how the five latest climate conferences has turned out, they sign a deal where they say they will continue to talk and call it an success.

[magnemoe]

This is a very well know phenomenon, are you seriously claiming it not to happen¿ Simply from the wikipedia on it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png .

Also, your claim of a warmer antarctica getting more ice (it does not by the data linked before) by higher humidity sounds unfounded, any evidence please¿

No i have never seen any graphs of it before, however it show an larger trend than the IPCC predictions for 2100.

Also this should have been know a long time as most of the effect was 1870-1970 however faster afterward.

The Antarctica was just an expansion of the know fact about glaciers that snowfall is more important than temperature. Warmer winters tend to be snow rich because of more humidity this cause the glaciers to grow. yes warmer summers make them shrink more but summer in Antarctica is not warm.

[lajoswinkler]

Multiple reasons, one is that media tend to bring forward the load mouthed extremists. More right wing press who will put forward hard core deniers also from reason above. Add that the US don't have the CO2 tax scam so the deniers want to prevent it. In Europe its pretty much an lost case as its very hard to remove taxes.

Its also obvious the global warming politic will not go past the scam level. I call it scam as the politic has no calculated effect on global warming, yes it might have other benefits, everything from more money for the government to better air quality.

The politicians signed a lots of deals then dropped them then they found it would be very expensive compared to the economic crisis we have been trough.

All realistic politicians know this however it would be very political incorrect to say so, solution is to talk about other stuff.

Look how the five latest climate conferences has turned out, they sign a deal where they say they will continue to talk and call it an success.

Media is pretty much the same everywhere. Gold digging sensationalists.

I don't know what to say about a specific carbon footprint policy. It might be good, it might be bad. The fact is that USA is one of the horrible exhausts of CO2 and the rest of the world has to suffer because of it.

For example, phasing out incadescent lights and turning to whole lifecycle efficient CFL-s is a good way to reduce the footprint, but I agree there will be policies that will not be efficient (or even downright rubbish!) and will pass just because of lobbying and corruption. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try anything.

Edited November 25, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[vetrox]

Can anyone please explain to me why are the global warming denialism variations ("there is no GW" and "we have no effect") so popular in USA? You only hear Americans talking about it. Why is that? The rest of the world pretty much acknowledges the problems. Here in Europe that denialism is much more quiet, mostly tied to known crackpots, and the general public opinion is that the climate is changing and that the world's most powerful carbon chuggers are the most responsible for it, therefore mankind has an obvious effect.

Is it because USA is the worst developed country when it comes to carbon footprint, so the citizens have nobody "above" to look in anger, so they are faced with acceptance that it's their country that has done lots of harm? I think it might be it.

I know im not a mod but this will only result in name calling and racism. I was hoping (in vain) that political aspects of this argument would stay away

Most amusingly, Koch industries contributed funding to a recent well publicised study lead by a researcher who was initially quite sceptical about climate change, mainly due to some of the research methodologies used by some climate research groups, but his team discovered over the course of their research that the conclusions of those other research groups appeared broadly correct.

Has there been a paper published for this research?

I've pretty much read all i can about climate change over the last week. My next curiosity is the effect of energy drinks on my kidneys. But thats for a different thread.

Although I encourage everyone to continue their debates (and its nice to see some sources linked as well) without dissolving into a heated argument I will no longer read this thread as I've had enough and its not a subject im particularly interested in (although all developed populations should be) i was curious about a fact i had read and have had it answered so I wont be reading much more from this thread but thanks to everyone who has contributed

[PakledHostage]

Can anyone please explain to me why are the global warming denialism variations ("there is no GW" and "we have no effect") so popular in USA?

Today's XKCD seems somehow relevant...

[lajoswinkler]

I know im not a mod but this will only result in name calling and racism. I was hoping (in vain) that political aspects of this argument would stay away

What you've just said is pure trolling and strawman arguments, unless you really mean what you've said, which would mean you have no bloody idea what racism is.

It's obvious USA has a huge problem with this. Why don't we hear India or Portugal going nuts over it?

Or is it that burying heads into sand is the preferred behaviour for you? Facts are facts, why can't we discuss them? Talking about a nanny state policy...

[Nibb31]

Can anyone please explain to me why are the global warming denialism variations ("there is no GW" and "we have no effect") so popular in USA? You only hear Americans talking about it. Why is that?

This whole denial of science thing is something that I have noticed for quite some time. It's really bewildering for people from outside the US.

I don't think the media is to blame, because as you say, media people are pretty much the same everywhere. I think it's due to the political system in the US, in which corporate financing of political parties is institutionalized, whereas in most of the rest of the world it's pretty much illegal. When oil companies pay for your campaign (and this happens on both sides of the political spectrum, just to be safe with the mods here), then you will tend to defend their interests, and their interests are that we keep on burning as much oil as we can. And then, the media and the opinion will relay what their favorite politician says.

[Anton P. Nym]

So far as I can tell the denialism on (anthropogenic) climate change in the US comes out of economic concerns; the US is a huge exporter of fossil fuels (particularly of coal and natural gas) so not only is there huge money tied up there but also a lot of jobs depending upon consumption of those fuels. As the adage goes, it's hard to get someone to listen to a point when their paycheque depends upon not hearing what's being said.

There's another strain, the theopolitical one, but I don't know if that's cause or just a symptom of the previous point.

-- Steve

[PakledHostage]

I had a look at chartsbin.com and found a chart showing the percentage of population that know something about global warming and believe that it is anthropogenic. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the data, but the plot seems to at least be consistent with another source (specific to Americans) at the Yale school of forestry and environmental studies: