[Wholebeing]

New research suggests the Earth's climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an 'apocalyptic side of bad' temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...07881.html

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923

[Wholebeing]

Climate change is affecting all life on Earth – and that’s not good news for humanity

https://theconversation.com/climate-chan...nity-66475

[Wholebeing]

More bad news about global climate:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...rd-un-says

World Meteorological Organization figures show global temperature is 1.2C above pre-industrial levels and will set a new high for the third year running.... It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.

"The scorching temperatures around the world, and the extreme weather they drive, mean the impacts of climate change on people are coming sooner and with more ferocity than expected, according to scientists."

"The record-smashing heat led to searing heatwaves across the year: a new high of 42.7C was recorded in Pretoria, South Africa in January; Mae Hong Son in Thailand saw 44.6C on 28 April; Phalodi in India reached 51.0C in May and Mitribah in Kuwait recorded 54.0C in July. Parts of Arctic Russia also saw extreme warming - 6C to 7C above average."

Arctic ice reached its equal second lowest extent in the satellite record in September while warm oceans saw coral mortality of up to 50% in 'parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.' "

[alx13]

In 2013, there were 10,883 peer-reviewed scientific studies to the effect that global warming is real and caused by humans. In the same year, how many such studies took the opposite position? Exactly Two. From this article:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_ou...happening/

"As geochemist James Lawrence Powell "to the People" continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell "to the People" went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming."

Powell "to the People" himself is quoted as saying:

"Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it."


I know I'm unlikely to get any rep points for supporting the view that global warming is real and caused by human activity - much less have this post noticed by most on this board. That's discouraging for me, as I see the pervasive influence of fossil fuel corporation propaganda in the marketplace, and I'm committed to reality - and for me it's clear that the overwhelming evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. I'd ask you, why is there so little questioning in this thread of the self-serving motivations of those same fossil fuel corporations in funding the so called "arguments" "against global warming"? IMHO, the arguments against global warming are so persuasive, despite their lack of observational support, because they don't require any proactive change on our part. We can continue blithely doing business as usual, without facing the massive implications for change in our way of life implied by global climate change. In denial, there's also the added short-term benefit that we don't have to feel the pain of having to admit that, as a civilization and as individuals, we've altered the earth's climate for the worst.

Not only is man-made global warming a legitimate scientific concern (any theory is "legitimate" and worthy of testing by observation), I'm convinced it's also happening, with profound implications for our future quality of life.

Yes, I admit that TPTB are using both sides of this issue to gain further advantage in their power and wealth, as they will use almost any issue. And I abhor this. A marketplace in "carbon credits" is a perfect example. Yet this manipulation implies nothing about the reality of global warming.

Please consider what I've said above. What if it's true? A failure to proactively prepare yourself and your family for these changes might be pretty costly.

Hi.

Thank you for showing us the "other side".

I would kindly ask you though to provide us with one article which explains the actual research done and all the caveats (meaning proxis for missing data etc).
In the articles you posted (I skimmed through most) I couldn't find one which explained the evidence. The fact that 10.883 out of 10.885 scientists (I don't know which is the criteria for gathering these opinions) agree on something which is so much beyond the reach of human understanding (partly because of missing data on registered temperatures not only from 1.000.000 years ago but from 2000 years ago or even 500 years ago) is, for me, an argument to be suspicious rather than embrace the "consensus".

The conclusion is even more alarming (not to say outright false):
"What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations."

Please, show me the mountain of evidence in favor of man-made global warming.
And for number 2 - no alternative theory? hello? This article posted above pretty much sums up my views on the subject too:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...14017.html

There is an alternative theory. It says climate change IS real! But man-made climate change is an invented theory played by governments for more power.

The conclusion of the, sorry to say, completely manipulative and subjective article you posted is very clear:
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations

In other words: whoever even discusses man-made global warming is paid by fossil fuel companies or right wing foundations (?). Wth does right wing foundations have to do with man-made global warming??

I believe that there is a mountain of reasons why to be extremely skeptical about the man-made global warming and these are just common sense reasons, as follows:
1. The Earth has been here for millions of years. The thought that humans managed to destroy its balance in a mere 50-100 years sounds like smug arrogance to me.
2. The Earth underwent an Ice Age (that much we know) after which is warmed back to the current state. That sounds like a dramatic warming to me. Why is the current warming viewed as accelerated/worse than that one?
3. Before being able o draw drastic conclusions about the warming in the recent 50 years, you need to have hard data about how the climate acted in previous periods. Not proxis, not statistical analysis, not what we think the temperatures were back then. But real evidence. If you take a proxi and then try to convince everyone that your conclusion is correct and try to discredit anyone who disagrees that sounds more like delusion to me.


I am very worried and skeptical whenever the "consensus" is imposed on people and articles just like the one you posted the link to come into the media. Which make statements without providing arguments and also make conclusions that discredit anyone who might disagree.

I am also very worried about this approach to man-made global warming. Why? Because it can easily spiral out of hand. With fabricated "mountain of evidence" for man-made global warming, if the climate continues to change (and it will, of that I have no doubt), that will be a perfect excuse for governments to impose stricter controls on the population. Germany already banned internal combustion engines starting with 2030. That sounds like far away, but it is not really... What is next? For governments to introduce electricity cuts, and restricted access to anything viewed as bad for the environment. They can use the "environmental excuse" for basically doing anything they want.

[alx13]

Climate change is affecting all life on Earth – and that’s not good news for humanity

https://theconversation.com/climate-chan...nity-66475

Again: I am not arguing against climate change. That is real and we can all see it.

I am contesting man-made climate change. I believe humans are too small to have an effect at Planetary level.

These articles play on the human fear of "what will happen once the Earth warms even more" and just "assume" that man is to blame for that. Which is far from proven.

Of course, pollution has it's "local" effects if you will.. Crowded cities with too many CO2 emissions from cars certainly affect the health of the local population. With that I can agree and imposing some restrictions locally to protect the population is more than ok. But to start a "cult" about the man-made global warming and theories like "if we don't act now it will be too late" is like signing a blank check to the governments of the world to do whatever they want having this as an excuse. Typical manipulative bs!

[Wholebeing]

Actually, alx13, I don't think it's an assumption. While humans never have all the facts, and all the data, I'm convinced that most of the scientists mentioned in the previous post work hard to nail down as much as possible. If you want the studies, and the evidence, I invite you to go to scholar.google.com and enter "anthropogenic climate change".

And check out this beautifully done animation based on findings from the folks at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-w...the-world/

In order to say that global warming is caused by humans, and specifically greenhouse gases, it's necessary to rule out the effects of natural factors and other human factors. To do this, correlation between measured temperature and the measured levels of all these other factors is examined, and climate models are used. As the graphic at the link above makes clear, the effect of greenhouse gases overwhelmed all other influences, during the time when we have direct measurement of these factors.

I submit that arguments like the ones contained in the link you posted, that cast doubt on longer time frame conclusions, based on indirect observations (like ice cores) and unknowable factors such as cosmic ray intensity, are moot. It doesn't matter that many other influences have altered climate in the distant past. What matters is that for the last several hundred years the greenhouse gases produced by humans are very probably causally linked to rises in global temperature during that period, and - assuming that the relative stability the earth has enjoyed in all those other factors for the last 10,000 years continues - if greenhouse gas production continues at its present rate, the temperatures will rise to levels that are dangerous for human life. Moreover, concentrations of CO2 in the oceans will raise the acidity of the oceans to levels that no longer support the ocean food chain, resulting in its collapse. That's what matters.

Given the probabilities, are you really going to take a chance that these associations are not true, base on your belief that humans are too small to have an effect at Planetary level?

If you want to dig into the raw data, and run your own correlations, check out the links at the bottom of the above presentation.

I don't believe in signing a blank check over to any government - in the same way I don't believe in government carte blanch for the oil industry in the leasing of the public commons. And as I said in my first post above, there are a myriad of issues used by those with power to manipulate us, including this one - and that doesn't vitiate the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis in the least. It must be argued on its merits. On the other side of the argument, it's clear that fossil fuel companies have actively funded efforts to deny the science.

Coal companies' secret funding of climate science denial was recently exposed in several bankruptcy filings of major U.S. coal companies:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/...al-exposed

The book, The Madhouse Effect, by Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles goes into far more detail of the comprehensive effort made by those with a vested interest in continued business as usual to manipulate the media and the science:
https://www.amazon.com/Madhouse-Effect-T...231177860/

[GeoFib]

http://www.acting-man.com/?p=48116

Unsure whether to paste this one on the warming thread or politics thread, but AGW is the primary topic.
Thanks to Pater Tenebrerum, acting-man website.

Good summary of what is "settled", what is fiction,......and what is politics, with plenty of links.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/201...nowflakes/
To add to the politics side

[alx13]

Actually, alx13, I don't think it's an assumption. While humans never have all the facts, and all the data, I'm convinced that most of the scientists mentioned in the previous post work hard to nail down as much as possible. If you want the studies, and the evidence, I invite you to go to scholar.google.com and enter "anthropogenic climate change".

And check out this beautifully done animation based on findings from the folks at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-w...the-world/

In order to say that global warming is caused by humans, and specifically greenhouse gases, it's necessary to rule out the effects of natural factors and other human factors. To do this, correlation between measured temperature and the measured levels of all these other factors is examined, and climate models are used. As the graphic at the link above makes clear, the effect of greenhouse gases overwhelmed all other influences, during the time when we have direct measurement of these factors.

I submit that arguments like the ones contained in the link you posted, that cast doubt on longer time frame conclusions, based on indirect observations (like ice cores) and unknowable factors such as cosmic ray intensity, are moot. It doesn't matter that many other influences have altered climate in the distant past. What matters is that for the last several hundred years the greenhouse gases produced by humans are very probably causally linked to rises in global temperature during that period, and - assuming that the relative stability the earth has enjoyed in all those other factors for the last 10,000 years continues - if greenhouse gas production continues at its present rate, the temperatures will rise to levels that are dangerous for human life. Moreover, concentrations of CO2 in the oceans will raise the acidity of the oceans to levels that no longer support the ocean food chain, resulting in its collapse. That's what matters.

Given the probabilities, are you really going to take a chance that these associations are not true, base on your belief that humans are too small to have an effect at Planetary level?

If you want to dig into the raw data, and run your own correlations, check out the links at the bottom of the above presentation.

I don't believe in signing a blank check over to any government - in the same way I don't believe in government carte blanch for the oil industry in the leasing of the public commons. And as I said in my first post above, there are a myriad of issues used by those with power to manipulate us, including this one - and that doesn't vitiate the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis in the least. It must be argued on its merits. On the other side of the argument, it's clear that fossil fuel companies have actively funded efforts to deny the science.

Coal companies' secret funding of climate science denial was recently exposed in several bankruptcy filings of major U.S. coal companies:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/...al-exposed

The book, The Madhouse Effect, by Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles goes into far more detail of the comprehensive effort made by those with a vested interest in continued business as usual to manipulate the media and the science:
https://www.amazon.com/Madhouse-Effect-T...231177860/

There are 4 points you bring in the discussion, which I would like to address punctually:

1. The animation on the findings from NASA. The reasoning is flawed. The fact that the greenhouse gases increased while the temperature increased doesn't mean that there was any correlation between the two. On that way of thinking one might observe an increase in the population of rabbits in a forest at the same time and conclude that the rabbit population had a direct effect on climate change. There is no evidence that one has any link with the other. They can be totally uncorrelated events.
It's also easy to hide behind "climate models". The climate is a very complex mechanism and I think any climate model is flawed in more ways than one. There is no way to be sure that the models are correct. For that one would need to re-create all conditions that the Earth has inside a lab and then play around with different variables to see which one has an effect. I don't think that will be done any time soon.

2. Your statement "the greenhouse gases produced by humans are very probably causally linked to rises in global temperature". I doubt that very much since it was not proven. Especially since the greenhouse gases concentration supposedly increased by 40% since 1880s, while the Earth temperature increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.4 Fahrenheit), according to the article you posted from bloomberg. Sorry to say but 0.7 degrees in more than 200 years is far from alarming. And also it seems to be fluctuating from one year to another, meaning it can actually decrease in a certain year (like 2016).

3. Your rather alarmist conclusions that "if greenhouse gas production continues at its present rate, the temperatures will rise to levels that are dangerous for human life. Moreover, concentrations of CO2 in the oceans will raise the acidity of the oceans to levels that no longer support the ocean food chain, resulting in its collapse." There is no evidence of that. Greens and doomists have been calling for the death of the Ocean for a long long time. Nothing happened since and the Ocean is alive and well. The 1st article posted by Geofib shows an article from 94 years ago which was calling the melt of the icebergs... yep, they're still here!

4. The statement that "fossil fuel companies have actively funded efforts to deny the science.". I don't argue with that. But I will argue with the "deny the science" part. The science is far from settled. In fact, it seems to me that it is mostly based on doubtful assumptions and is also grossly overstating the conclusions. Things like "climate will be dangerous to human life in 10y if we don't change", "Oceans will be acid", "icecaps will melt" and so on... To draw such drastic conclusions based on, at best, a long set of assumptions (and at worse on falsified data) is manipulative and hides behind a secret agenda.


To summarize: IMHO there is no "mountain of evidence" for man-made climate change and the "science" behind it is seriously flawed at best, and manipulative at worst.
The article from acting-man posted by Geofib nicely wraps up my opinion on the matter as well as my main critics tied to:
1. the false assertion that the science is “settled” and that no-one should be allowed to question its assertions and 2. the politicization of this branch of science, in particular the drive to impose regulations and taxes that are highly damaging to economic growth and capital accumulation, which would be dubious even if the evidence were less flimsy.