"It's part of a natural cycle" - Page 2

A recent study concluded that a poll of Earth scientists found that 97.4% of climate scientists believe that humans are contributing significantly to global warming.  So there are a few who aren't convinced, but they don't really have any scientific evidence to support their position.  And you're never going to get all scientists agreeing on any theory.  I'm sure there are plenty who don't believe the evolutionary theory is correct.

Whether or not we can sufficiently slow global warming, and how much we have to do to accomplish this is another question where there is much debate and research.  However, most scientists are in agreement that we can still avoid catastrophic climate change, and that it will take significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions to do so.

As long as I am concerned, I am not <waiting forl 100% or near 100% proof>. I have been, and am taking actions whatever I can do. I am just saying I prefer to take action by paying attention to other possibilities, rather than blindly believe one thing and rush into one direction.

By the way, there are quite good chances that deniers change to believers. Skeptics are bit more difficult, and those in the middle are the hardest to convince. This is a sort of rule of thum in marketing.

There is known <10% hurdle> in the marketing. When a manufactuer cames up with a new product and spend gazillions of money for all kind of advertisement, it is so hard to increase first few to several percent of market share. But, when it gets around 10%, sales suddely increases very quickly.

The reason is there are only few percent of people who really pays attention at the beginning. And, those include curious and prefer anything new, deniers and skeptics. When those people actually begin to use the new product, "public" who did not pay any attention begin to notice chages around and start paying attention.

I think this global warming is the same thing. Those who deny or being skeptical are paying attention anyway; so they are all candidates.  

Forget ever getting 100% of the people to agree on anything. Too many fools in the world for that.

With politicians it is even more difficult to get concensus.

Everyone needs to take their own steps - some will be bigger than others but so what - at least start and accomplish something. Then the next step will be easier with wider participation.

Fanatics from either side only slow down progress that can be made.

They sure do !!

By the way, I have never mentioned about 100% concensus or agreement. On the contrary, I am saying those who have different opinion or beliefs should not be ignored, espacially for the matter like global warming which includes too many factors to find full details.

I agree. One thing unclear - which group of people are you referring by "global warming contrarians"? I assume you are not involving those who are nearly innocent public like floating vote of election, which is probably 90% of entire public. If I so, vast majority of contrarians is actually very small in numbers, correct?

A contrarian is somebody who refuses to accept basic and fundamental science.  For example, a contrarian will argue that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, that CO2 can't cause the planet to warm, that the planet isn't warming, that climate models are worthless, and so on.

Another important characteristic is that a contrarian will refuse to change his position.  For example, if a person doesn't realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus causes the planet to warm, but changes his opinion when the science is explained to him, then he's not a contrarian.  A contrarian isn't ignorant of the science, he just rejects it for the sake of being contrary.

The majority of people aren't very familiar with the scientific evidence, but the majority of people also defer to the scientific experts.  I think this is a very important move - if you don't know about or understand the science, then listen to what the experts have concluded.  Too many people have little or no understanding of climate science and yet are convinced that climate scientists are wrong.

We are all basically afraid of changes, regardless of what it is, and majority are also lasy. If we know the greenhouse gases increase temperature, we need to do something - take action to change it. But, it is a lot more comfortable to stay as is by ignoring the theory - not necessarily denying. Some even agree and accept the theory, but just do not take action until it really begin affecting their living. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dana1981 

A recent study concluded that a poll of Earth scientists found that 97.4% of climate scientists believe that humans are contributing significantly to global warming.

That looks to be a slight misrepresentation of the study you cited.  If I'm reading it correctly, only 82% for "Earth scientists" answered "yes" in response to the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

The 97.4% rate was only for "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" -- a group that made up only 77 of the 3,146 respondents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank 

 

 

That looks to be a slight misrepresentation of the study you cited. 

It just depends how you define 'climate scientist'.  To me, it's somebody who's an expert in climate science.  A geologist is an Earth scientist, but has little to no expertise in climate sciences, and they drag the percentage down ("economic geologists" had by far the lowest percentage of members saying humans are causing global warming at just 47%).

I think it's the fact that these are mainly medical groups who obviously don't have any expertise in the subject and thus aren't framing the issue correctly.  However, I doubt many people get their climate science information from the Australian Medical Association, for example.  Unfortunate that these groups have official positions on the subject which are poorly worded, but I don't think they have much impact on public perception.  I think they're more reflective of the public's poor understanding of the subject.

As I have been saying, I don't see any problem with those statements. Large percentage of scientists believes human is the main cause of recent global warning, but some scientists think it is one of the causes......

There must be "enough amount" of data that makes large percentage of scientists "conclude" human is causing current global warming, but it is obviously not enough for those who are not sure about it. I personally think human is causing the situation, but there seems to be no evidence or proof that there will be no climate change if there were no man-made GHGs. I would like to know if there were such proof - not assumption, not hypothesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mota 

there seems to be no evidence or proof that there will be no climate change if there were no man-made GHGs.

Solar irradiance has not increased in about 60 years and based on the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in the midst of a very slow and gradual cooling period right now (which we were for about 8,000 years until 150 years ago).

It's all covered in the Global Warming and Climate Change Causes Wiki.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dana1981 

 

 

Solar irradiance has not increased in about 60 years and based on the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in the midst of a very slow and gradual cooling period right now (which we were for about 8,000 years until 150 years ago).

 

It's all covered in the Global Warming and Climate Change Causes Wiki.

I love climate skeptics.  I know people think I'm disrespectul of them, but for goodness sakes, here are a group that freely admit they don't really understand the science, yet are *certain* there is something amiss with the conclusions of the National Academy of Science and the IPCC.  Unbelievable.  It is this blatant display of Dunning-Kruger syndrome that leads me to have little respect from them. 

Mota wants *proof* that CO2 is affecting climate, which is always the last bastion of those who can't connect the physics dots for themselves.  Proof in science never exists, that concept only exists in the minds of skeptics, who require it in this instance to preserve their lifestyles.  They would be pathetic if they weren't so dangerous.

Just once, I want some skeptic to explain, using known physics, why it could be that CO2 is not providing a radiative forcing to the planet, or if they want to acknowledge it is, how that forcing cannot be affecting climate.  The climate scientists at the NAS and IPCC are on my side.  There response is to say I am disrespectful.  Don't make me laugh.

Threads like this are pointless because arguing about whether something needs to be done is ridiculous.  The discussion at this point is whether you want to at least try to mitigate, or just figure out realistic strategies for adaptation. 

 I agree with gcnp58 - "The discussion at this point is whether you want to at least try to mitigate, or just figure out realistic strategies for adaptation."

This applies to a whole lot of other things as well as GW. When there were fewer people around a mess could be made without ever seeing the consequences. With the present and future popultion levels that option is no longer with us. 

Better to get the head out of the sand and take actions - change is rarely fast and certainly even more rarely efficient.

Running aroung hugging trees is not the way out. Science & technology with common sense added (such as doing the small things we are all in control of) will show the way.

Politics and politicians will follow.

It's certainly true that the debate at this point should be (and is) about mitigation and adaption, not causation.  And I certainly understand and share gcnp's frustration with 'skeptics'.  We have a good understanding of fundamental climate science, so we know the situation.  But for people who don't, in some ways it's understandable that they be somewhat 'skeptical'.

As usual I have to go back to the media on this one.  That's where most people get most of their information, including on scientific issues.  A lot of media coverage tries to be 'fair and balanced' and give equal time to 'both sides'.  So to the general public, sometimes it's hard to see that the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about the causes of global warming.  And if they try to research the subject, unless they look at the right websites (i.e. scientific ones like NASA, NOAA, etc.), it's very easy to become misinformed because there's a lot of baloney out there intended to confuse and misinform people.

For someone who doesn't have a good grasp on the basic science, they just don't know if skeptics like Spencer and Lindzen know what they're talking about.  For all they know, Spencer's argument that the PDO may play a significant role in global warming are perfectly plausible.  And they probably don't even realize that other skeptics like Lindzen and Christy don't even dispute the human cause of global warming, they dispute how much the planet will warm in the future.  All we hear is that these guys are 'skeptics', and most people don't specify exactly what they're skeptical about.

So while I agree, when a person can't tell the difference between the 'two sides', he should listen to the best scientists like the National Academy of Science and IPCC, I can also see how it's easy to become misinformed and confused.  Because the goal of a lot of people is to misinform and confuse others on this subject, and they've become quite good at it.  After all, a lot of these 'skeptics' like Lindzen and Singer and Spencer got practice by arguing that secondhand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer, or that CFCs don't cause the hole in the ozone layer, or that evolution was intelligently designed.

I always think opposing thoughts and opinions are like "salt and pepper " to food, especially at these casual forum. To enjoy or to laugh at is all up to each individual. What bothers me is those who does not understand properly what others are saying.

I guess you need a new pair of glasses. And, there is no proof in science??? It is an interesting theory; I am not talking about religion.

Anyway, have I ever said I am skeptical to what CO2 does? No, I have been repeatedly saying I do understand the theory and believe GHGs are contributing to global warming. I am simply curious about what extent, and to find answers to those opposing opinions.

gcnp58 and Russ, I hope you have an aswer to this opposing fact. Some data show CO2 increase was observed after temperature increase; for short term, temperature increased six month to a year prior to CO2 increase, and for long term 600 (+-400) years prior to CO2 increase. Why was that?

It really does not matter to me, and does not affect what I am doing about GHG. I don't mind to change my lifestyle; my car has only 1.9 liter engine and hardly go over 2500 rpm, I set my heater at 55 deg. when I am home alone, I often ride on a bicycle for short distance shopping, etc....

One of major problems is that many people are looking for and waiting for improved greener staff that fits in current lifestyle rather than considering modifying lifestyle, which can make major change in decreasing energy abuse.  

Before I retired I used to have discussions with a friend & co-worker, a chemical engineer plus very bright guy, about global warming. He maintained 'no such thing' is happening.

I am a mechanical engineer and typically don't worry about what the molecules do to each other. My job was to move them around for the chemical types as the process needed.

My reply to my friend was that as you fly around the world just look out the window. The atmosphere is a mess. It is bad enough in the US but Asia is far worse. Across the mideast is bad. From the time you enter Indian airspace it becomes worse - all the way across the remainder of Asia - all the way from the North to the South of Africa.

Can you possibly believe that has no affect. Same with CO2, refrigerants etc, as we dump tremendous amounts into the atmosphere there is no way for it to be good. I can still remember when the air was very much cleaner.

Whether it is kind of bad or really bad is for others to worry about and keep us informed. Personally, I think it is bad enough that people should be very concerned.

I realize others have greater understanding requirements but I forgot about trying to be an expert in other areas long back. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mota 

 

gcnp58 and Russ, I hope you have an aswer to this opposing fact. Some data show CO2 increase was observed after temperature increase; for short term, temperature increased six month to a year prior to CO2 increase, and for long term 600 (+-400) years prior to CO2 increase. Why was that?

That's covered under the Carbon Dioxide Feedbacks section of the Global Warming and Climate Change Causes Wiki.  You really should read it.  I think it's a good introduction to the basic science.

Thaniks dana1981. I sure read it.

Two quetions; 1. it simply cocludes "it took 800 years".... what is the mechanism of taking 800 years? 2. What about short term lag?

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mota 

 1. it simply cocludes "it took 800 years".... what is the mechanism of taking 800 years?

2. What about short term lag?

 

In past warming events at the ends of ice ages, it took approximately 800 years to warm the oceans to a point where they were a net carbon source (releasing more than absorbing).

2. Not sure what short term lag you're referring to.  CO2 levels have been increasing for over 200 years.  Global temperatures have been increasing for approximately the same amount of time, perhaps a bit less.

Thank you dana1981. I do appreciate your patience and explanations.

I'll be back with short terms explanations.

You folks are the same ones that were predicting that were were on our way to an new Ice Age in the late 70's.  The science on how much Global Warming is man-made is unclear.   We know that this warming trend is part of a natural trend that occurs every 200,000; 20,000; 2000, and 200 years.   

Gore Lied in his film and won a Nobel for it while Sendler, a person who actually saved 2500 children during the holocaust, went ignored.  If you believe Al Gore, you aren't looking at the facts or listening to the experts.  Most of the Man-Made Global Warming scare is politically motivated to encourage fear and  push us into leftist, socialist economic policies. 

I believe we should do everything in our power to help the planet without sacrificing our way of life--I'm buyng an EV this year.  But I don't accept the political crap regarding MMGW.

Oh boy here we go.  I'll number your claims for ease of rebuttal. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim1786 

1) You folks are the same ones that were predicting that were were on our way to an new Ice Age in the late 70's. 

2) The science on how much Global Warming is man-made is unclear.  

3)We know that this warming trend is part of a natural trend that occurs every 200,000; 20,000; 2000, and 200 years.  

 

4) Gore Lied in his film and won a Nobel for it

5) while Sendler, a person who actually saved 2500 children during the holocaust, went ignored.  6) If you believe Al Gore, you aren't looking at the facts or listening to the experts. 

7) Most of the Man-Made Global Warming scare is politically motivated to encourage fear and  push us into leftist, socialist economic policies. 

 

8) I believe we should do everything in our power to help the planet without sacrificing our way of life--I'm buyng an EV this year.  But I don't accept the political crap regarding MMGW.

1) Wrong.  See Myth #1 in the Global Warming Myths wiki.

2) Well that's rather vague.  Is the science of evolution "unclear" too?  Climate scientists think it's pretty clear.  I recommend the Global Warming and Climate Change Causes wiki.

3) We do?  So what causes these supposed cycles?

The problem with the "natural cycles" argument is that even natural cycles have causes.  For example, there are oscillations like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), a part of which is ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation).  But these don't cause long-term climate change.  There's the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles, according to which we should be in a gradual cooling period right now, not a rapid warming.  There are solar cycles, and so on.

So if you're going to make the "natural cycles" argument, you have to do better than just saying natural cycles exist.  You have to show which natural cycle can account for the recent rapid global warming.  Which you can't, because none of them can account for this warming.

4) No he didn't.  There were points in the film which were not sufficiently precise and some minor incorrect arguments, but there were no lies.  The fundamental science in the film was correct.

5) The fact that Sendler didn't win the Nobel Prize is irrelevant to the science behind global warming.

6) Wrong.  97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

7) Silly conspiracy theory.  Why would climate scientists want socialist economic policies?  I mean seriously, that's tinfoil hat level stuff.

8) Well that's what's important.  Frankly I don't care how wrong you are about global warming as long as you reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, and support politicians who are trying to do the same from a policymaking standpoint.

While I agree that Gore is a blow hard that somebody else is riding to make a point the general direction is very right. His willingness to 'buy his way out' and live like he always has does not set good.

Right Dana - the end is far more important than the reasoning we use to get there. We all need to treat mother earth a hell of a lot better than has historically been done