Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by hansp77, Sep 11, 2006.

?

Do you believe

  1. Global Warming is occuring as a direct result of Human Activity.

    106 vote(s)
    51.7%
  2. IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

    99 vote(s)
    48.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,287
    Likes: 259, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    I really dislike these sort of polls.

    I vote for: Climate change happens all the time, it sure seems to be happening now given reports from glacier areas, Humans might have added a tiny bit extra (but there is no way to tell or prove that since we can't track any gaseous inputs).

    Did anybody miss all the articles about Vikings in Greenland growing moderate climate crops in National Geographic in the ?1400's?

    I remember the early 70's hysterical reports that we were having a "mini- Ice Age".

    I suppose you could call the burning underground coal deposits in Russia a "human" source. I suppose the burning swamp in the US could be the same. Of course lightning "could" have started either one. Gods fault in that case.

    I didn't read the whole thread, sorry I probably got repetitious and a waste of everyone time.
     
  2. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Tom
    Firstly welcome to the group, its always nice to get some informed feedback on the issues presented. Hoyt brought in a list of errors in Al Gores lecture from your site. I'm curious why such a well learned scientist would fail to distinguish between climate and weather. Its obvious that Gores error lie in and only in the example, not in the concept. Temps are warming, CO2 is increasing, we can be assured, with a very high degree of confidence where the excess CO2 came from ( fossil fuels ) and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    So why would your site fail to point out these important elements of the educational process if your interest is to genuinely further the public's understanding of Al Gores statements? Thats not defamation, thats a question. If I got it somehow wrong and you just missed the difference between climate and weather and that no single example used to create an average would be sufficient to define that average, then you have my most humble apologies however. If a reasonable explanation or retraction is not forthcoming then I believe it would reflect poorly on the impartiality of the site as a whole. I think we both know that the confidence in the theory of rapid global climate shift is sound and enjoys an extremely high consensus. So why attack an infomercial like Gore's simply because of a poor example as if the point being made by that example were somehow flawed as well? Doesn't that simply spread confusion among your readers?

    Again if this was somehow just one big error then of course you have my most humble apologies. I would also expect a little editing on your part to correct the misconception.

    Cheers and welcome to the group
    B

    I'm hoping you wont be to offended if I make a detailed review of the other claims about Al Gore's flick. Seems reasonable that if you put work out into the public domain that it get reviewed by the public, doesn't it. Seems equally as reasonable that if any errors are found that as an honest scientist with expert credentials you would be thankful and interested in correcting those errors as well.

    Basically the defamation clause is not a gag order, its a plea for civility and reasonable conversation. If your willing to correct the error pointed out in that first statement about Al Gores movie then I think we can move closer to some place of agreement concerning the meat and potato's of his lecture. Sure the example of Kilimanjaro was a poor example, but for some pretty dicey reasons and the point he was trying to make is none the less accurate.

    Rapid Global Climate Shift is responsible for glassier loss.

    My remark about, "real scientist" was in error, perhaps I should have said real "climate" scientist. My questioning the veracity of the issues with Al Gores lecture as presented on your site are of course open to debate and I anxiously await a response concerning this first. However it would appear that arguing the example rather than concept presumably supported by the example without mentioning that the concept is sound could easily be "misconstrued" as somewhat less than impartial. Thus my further statement concerning the lack of apparent impartiality on this particular mater.
     
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Your not wasting anyone's time, just sit back, enjoy the poor grammar skills and have fun with it. Oh and welcome to the group. I can understand not wanting to go through and read all the posts here or the many other climate threads that have been around. But yes we have gone over all those issues before. Suffice it to say that sure, climate changes all the time, but, and its a huge but, thats not to say that we have not today artificially altered the atmospheric chemistry enough to induce climate shift. We know there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know where the CO2 came from and we can calculate its effects, we are also seeing those predictions made by calculation decades ago coming true. So the science is pretty well understood. Its pretty much a no brainer. We screwed up the atmosphere. Now we are in for quite the ride unless we can, and very soon, find a way to reverse the trend.
     
  4. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    Boston,

    Thank you for the hearty welcome.

    I do not know how long you have had an interest in the global warming issue. My interest goes back about five years. In that time I have come across very few anthropongic global warming climate skeptics who would argue with your statement that...

    "Temps are warming, CO2 is increasing, we can be assured, with a very high degree of confidence where the excess CO2 came from ( fossil fuels ) and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas."

    Like most thoughtful skeptics, I am in basic agreement with those statements, but may debate some of the details. I am not sure if you genuinely believe that prominent anthropomorphic global warming skeptics rabidly deny those points, or if you are simply throwing them out as the same old tired straw-men that we have all heard a thousand times.

    1. "Temps are warming." For the most part this has been true for the 20th century. But this does not appear to be the case for the last 10 years. See, for example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature projects temperature for the last 10 years...
    http://www.thegwpf.org/cache/multithumb_images/1500539555.jpg

    2. "CO2 is increasing, with a very high degree of confidence where the excess CO2 came from ( fossil fuels )" I have argued in support of this statement to the a small minority of skeptics who incorrectly disagree. For example, see here...
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...nt-contributor-to-increasing-atmospheric-co2/

    3. "we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas." Yes, of course. But so is water vapor. CO2 by itself cannot have the drastic effects hypothesized by Gore. It is much agreed the doubling CO2, by itself, would raise the planet's temperature by about 1.2 to 1.5 C. Everything beyond that requires positive feedbacks. But the magnitude of these feedbacks, and even their signs are poorly understood and much debated.

    If you would like to have a rational discussion, please refrain from the sophomoric nonsense such as “I'm curious why such a well learned scientist would fail to distinguish between climate and weather.” I say sophomoric in a clinical sense, not as an insult. I say sophomoric because I find that the person who utters it tends to think they have some uncommon wisdom (difference between climate and weather), when in reality everybody else already knew it.

    You mentioned “So why attack an infomercial like Gore's simply because of a poor example as if the point being made by that example were somehow flawed as well?” I think you are referring to my post about Kilimanjaro (which you commented on in one of your previous comments). Is that correct? You went on to say “no single example used to create an average would be sufficient to define that average...So why attack an infomercial like Gore's simply because of a poor example as if the point being made by that example were somehow flawed as well?” I think you were still talking about Gore's Kilimanjaro example, and my criticism of that example to the supposed exclusion of other examples. Is that correct? Your words were to clever for my feeble mind to completely understand.

    Anyway, if Kilimanjaro was in fact what you were talking about, then I will address it. I criticized Gore's “poor example” (your words) because that was the example that he gave, and it received great exposure. BoatDesign.net readers can read my criticism of Gore's Kilimanjaro example here...

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...limanjaro-are-not-evidence-of-global-warming/

    Subsequent work has tended to support my view. For example see...

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/20/7/1079.abstract

    But I did not restrict myself to this “single...poor example.” I addressed another, related, Gore “poor example.” Namely, the shrinkage of African Lake Chad. See here...

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...e-chad-cannot-be-blamed-on-anthropogenic-co2/

    ***********************
    You continue with “Sure the example of Kilimanjaro was a poor example, but for some pretty dicey reasons and the point he was trying to make is none the less accurate. Rapid Global Climate Shift is responsible for glassier loss.”

    Well Boston, we have already agreed (kind of) that “Temps are warming.” Warmer temperatures result in smaller glaciers – no argument there. The real argument is the cause of global warming, and whether it is unprecedented, and on what time scales. For example, the preponderance of evidence is that it was warmer (at least in the arctic) about 6000 years ago. This means less summer sea ice than today, undermining one of the tenets of global warming alarmism. See here...

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past/

    Finally (for the moment) lets consider your claim of my “lack of apparent impartiality on this particular mater.” I have spent the last 15 years of my life working on renewable energy, but I consider the pursuit of truth and science a higher calling. It would be very easy, self-serving, and profitable for me jump on the global warming bandwagon, but my skepticism is informed and genuine. A “lack of apparent impartiality” implies an inability of unwillingness to consider evidence contrary to your main thesis. Here are several examples where I have been critical of some ideas that circulated in some skeptic blogs, etc.

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...-data-does-show-increasing-temperature-trend/

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...ridge-not-responsible-melting-the-arctic-ice/

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise/

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/...nt-contributor-to-increasing-atmospheric-co2/

    Frankly, it is somewhat degrading to have to prove my “impartiality” because some stranger (that means you, Mr. Boston) has insinuated that I have none. Perhaps it was not “apparent” to you because you didn't bother to look. But I figure that it is now your turn – please prove YOUR impartiality.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    Senior Scientist, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    Author of ClimateSanity
     
  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Your very welcome. I've been interested in the global warming issue since my early college days. So I've been following the developments as best I can, It's held my interest for quite some time as its such a complex and engaging subject; with nearly every scientific field of study involved in some way or another.

    unfortunately I've got a lot on my plate today, so I'm going to have to be brief, ( which might raise a few cheers from the peanut gallery ) but I'll try and address each issue you have brought up eventually. If I forget one feel free to remind me.


    Around here we've had some unfortunately poorly informed participants who do in fact argue those basic statements. I believe the qualifier you use is reasonable to a degree, my discourse with F Miskolczi aside.

    in short the natural variability ( fluctuations inherent in the climate system ) can be expected to still show through in the data recording a climate shift. IE there is no reason that I can see that all other factors should suddenly fail to illicit a reaction in the climate system simply because excess CO2 is effecting an overall rise in temps at the same time. For instance solar minimum, or various ocean conditions, all will have a continuing effect even in the midst of climate shift. I'd say that any single ten year period of time could be considered statistically insignificant, with trends over larger periods of time being a far more rational view of our present situation.

    one more and then I gotta get moving


    suffice it to say I"m glad we can agree on this one, its pretty well established but its been argued endlessly around here by numerous people. It might have done well to mention methane production from livestock, given that livestock are less efficient than endemic species, or from land cleared for agriculture, but if we are sticking to CO2 then its perfect that we can find some agreement on this one.

    I'll give that link the time it deserves tonight and try and find the time to read and comment on these other issues as well, but I gotta run. Have a great day

    That second of the criticisms of Al Gore's lecture/infomercial

    that CO2 lags temp rather than precede it as Gore show's.

    Ice core data is subject to an issue of ice permeability, with fossil atmosphere lagging the age of ice by as much as 7k year. Please see, http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full
    I've checked briefly the papers published from Vostok but have yet to find any extensive work on the permeability issue. I also disagree that simply aligning the most recent part of the ice core is sufficient to compensate for variations in permeability. I'm kinda surprised to read this part given that they made an excellent case for the complexity of ice permeability and then simplified it to just one initial calibration. It seems pretty obvious that a more detailed analysis should be made or that we should consider the resolution when arguing such short time frames in ice core data. In short, seems like there's a little more work to do on correcting for the permeability of the ice and variations within that permeability, before we try and draw such a fine distinction and present it to the readers as definitive. In the present climate system its pretty obvious that CO2 levels are preceding and driving temp increase. If there's a correction/margin of error, of 7k over 800k years of data representing a discrepancy of <0.1% then it might be fair to not draw any significant conclusions from such a small variation. CO2 and temp appear statistically identical and the resolution does not seem to exist that might define one preceding the other.

    More on this aspect of calibrating the age of ice vs atmospheric bubbles can be found here. Please see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
    I might also mention again that developing a resolution of less than say a 2k years in a system with a margin of error typically placed between 5K and 7K years doesn't look like very prudent science. If Al Gore erred in suggesting that CO2 preceded temp then its just as much an error to suggest it lagged as well. It would be reasonable to say however that CO2 and temp are extremely closely related in the past climate system, and that CO2 is preceding temp in today's climate system.


    So it would seem reasonable to make some adjustment of that second critisism as well, lest by not including the whole argument some readers might be mislead into thinking that once again that there is some fundamental flaw in the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and in the present system is preceding temp increases.



    item three criticizing Al Gore's film makes my point exactly concerning item one.

    Its simply not possible to use a single weather event to define climate. So while he may not have qualified his example he again got the basic concept correct, We can expect more severe storms, but you gotta look at all the hurricanes to determine that, while the number of hurricanes does not appear to be increasing, the average intensity certainly does. Once again Al's example might have been flawed, but he nailed it when he suggests we can expect stronger hurricanes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0204-global_warming_equals_stronger_hurricanes.htm Making that distinction clear once again would help prevent a lot of reader confusion concerning climate shift and failing to do so, leads one to believe the site is bias. Even reading further into the link we never read about how more energy in the system, IE greater variations in temp lead to stronger storm activity. Instead we read a review of conflicting data concerning hurricane intensity and its historical cause, natural variability. The reader is not informed that today, we live in an artificially created atmosphere, and that the alterations in the atmospheric chemistry can be expected to have an impact on the climate system. By not presenting the information in its entirety, many readers will likely walk away with a biased view.

    If you would include the following statement ( found in the BBC ) or something like it, clarifying the ruling as positive and in favor of the film at the top of the page concerning Gore's film, rather than simply presenting the errors as if they preclude the concepts, then I believe we could be getting closer to that retraction you were asking for. Otherwise more and more people are going to think the site bias and although discussing the science, not presenting enough of it to allow the readers to draw an informed conclusion.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

    cheers
    B
     
  6. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    It's going to be a cold winter. How cold, who knows?
     
  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    looks like your 0 for 3 Hoyt, shall we take a look at the next few on that list. http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/criticisms-or-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth/

    item four suggests Gore is wrong about climate shift being responsible for lake Chad's drying up, as presented in his book, not sure if it was in his movie, so, not sure if it should be included in a list of complaints about his movie. But just for fun lets review it anyway. The claim is he's wrong for two reasons when once again, its his example he's being called on, and not the concept. Even the judge who ruled that his work was admissible in the school system made that very clear when he said.

    the two reasons given which imply global climate shift is not responsible for lake Chad's drying up ( which might mislead readers to believe that climate shift is not responsible for a loss of freshwater resources, increased desertification, drought and an overall loss in arable land ) are both simply and again just an attack on the example, while the concept was found to be valid.

    I'm noticing a central theme to these criticisms.

    None of these complaints actually address any significant errors in the theory of rapid global climate shift,

    None of these complaints inform the readers that while the concept the example was trying to support is sound the example was itself somehow flawed, what's being taken issue with is some few of the many examples used in his film. Basically, these complaints represent ankle biting at its worst. The complaints all share a similar petty theme that fails in each of the four cases I've reviewed to address or even offer a detailed enough explanation of the science, so as to not mislead the readers into thinking for instance in, that simply because of there is natural variability, there can't also be artificially induced variability.

    None of these complaints acknowledges that the London High Court ruled in favor of Gore's film being used in the class room.

    The complaints fail to acknowledge the difference between weather and climate within there argument. Any single event could be argued to constitute weather, with all its "local" variations, while climate is the average of all local weather. An important if minor distinction that if not made abundantly clear to the readers of sites like climatesanity will tend to mislead the readers into thinking that simply because the example could be argued to constitute weather that the climate change is not occurring. It is and it should be made ultimately clear that it is. Which it isn't in any of the four issues concerning Gore's film that I've reviewed so far.

    They fail to acknowledge that the concept is accurate. Actually the four issues reviewed so far fail to review the concepts at all, they focus on arguing weather over climate in most cases. Avoiding a detailed review of findings concerning the concepts.

    for instance the question

    are lakes and other fresh water sources being adversely effected by climate shift?

    DR Kathleen Miller NCAR
    senior climate scientist


    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    Alan P Covich PHD
    president International Association For Ecology

     
  8. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    This is the kinda stuff I'm talking about, Your statement is correct but lacking an informed explanation it could be misconstrued that CO2 is not the primary forcing agent. By grouping water vapor and CO2 into the same statement without clarifying that the two are distinctly different, we create an environment that can lead the less informed readers to think that water vapor is the major cause of our present warming trend. Water vapor is primarily a "result" of tempurature, CO2 is the primary cause of it, one being a primary forcing agent and the other being a feedback. A distinction if not carefully explained can lead to reader confusion. My complaint about your site not being impartial is partly based on these, seemingly intended omissions. If you are interested in creating an unbiased site it might reflect well to correct some of these types of failures.

    My own impartiality can be easily be recognized when I mention things like he ice permeability issue needing more study. By keeping my discourse to an open forum like Boatdesign.net, the opposing view has every chance to express itself, thus maintaining an unbiased environment within which to express myself.

    Impartiality would ask if you might correct your argument about Kilimanjaro to something like it being a poor example simply because it represents weather instead of climate, given that it in no way detracts from the overall concept of rapid global climate shift.

    By leaving the confusion in place and simply assuming
    when the distinction is key to the argument, the site appears bias. If a reader ( Mr Boston ) were to "mistakenly" see a bias then that error could be easily corrected by simply engaging in a more complete review of the issues with Gores film.

    The point is completely obvious, by not explaining in detail why the example of Kilimanjaro was flawed but the theory sound, you led at least one reader to believe the site itself was bias. Even if you are admitting a correlation between warming temps and melting ice here, you might want to include that in the complaint about Gore's film, specifically in item #1 and of course there should be position statement at the top of the page, so readers don't misunderstand that these complaints do not in any way reflect on the theory as a whole.

    Just a few ideas to improve the site
    hope it helps
    love
    B
     
  9. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    3 for O'Boston. Blah blah blah.


    Blah.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    actually I think its 4 and 0 but this next concerning polar bears I might have to call a valid point. claiming a polar bear did or didn't drown because of global warming is ridiculous in the extreme. I think he'd have done better sticking to the pure science rather than take the emotional tact and present dying polar bears as a poster child for climate change. My personal take on it is that polar bears have proven themselves one of the regions more adaptable species. Not that there isn't going to be species loss mind you, but I think the polar bears are going to do just fine.
     
  11. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I am kinda curious about this pair of statements Tom.

    "Temps are warming, CO2 is increasing, we can be assured, with a very high degree of confidence where the excess CO2 came from ( fossil fuels ) and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas."
    and

    alarmism ? would you care to elaborate on what it is about the theory of rapid global climate shift that represents alarmism. I believe if we were to look at the predictions of say the IPCC we can see an unerring trend towards conservatism in its predictions, with even the latest denier funded Berkly study finding temp increases far in excess of the IPCC predictions and findings.

    I'm thinking that the cause of global warming, assuming, as you yourself ( Tom ) mentioned, we agree, that CO2 is increasing, that it is the direct result of the burning of fossil fuels, and that it is a well established greenhouse gas, is pretty well set in stone. an increase of roughly 1/3 in atmospheric CO2 levels during the industrial revolution, is more than sufficient to explain the present levels of warming. So whats the issue with the cause of global warming? Do you have some other cause you'd like to present to the group? Do you have some other theory as to how the climate chemistry interacts? CO2 "is" a primary forcing agent, granted there are numerous feedbacks in the system, but these feedbacks "follow" rather than proceed any perturbations in a relatively stable climate system.

    I guess I'm a bit unsure of your exact position at this point. You mentioned early in our correspondence ( as noted ) that you agreed with the basic tenants of climate science. But then you seem to have retracted that statement by questioning the cause of climate shift, and of course there's the somewhat less then enlightening explanations of the so called errors in Gore's infomercial that I've yet to hear a firm rebuttal on. The very statements that led myself and I'm sure other readers to believe the sight
    Gore's work after all was established by the court as being fit for the classroom, with certain qualifications. IE improvements in the examples give and room left for the opposing point of view, which is exactly what I'm suggesting your site is lacking.

    we did ( didn't we ) establish that the additional CO2 in the system was anthropomorphic in nature, that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and that temps are rising. It seems somewhat contradictory to now come out with some question concerning the origins of our altering atmospheric chemistry or its reaction ( warming ) in the climate system.

    I'm hoping you will clarify these issues to the group soonest, or would you prefer to discuss this on your site so your readers as well as mine might benefit from the exchange.

    cheers
    B
     
  12. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Blah.
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    wrong again Hoyt, I commented on that not 2 or 3 posts ago. Could you at least pretend to be paying attention. ,

    and why are we shouting

     
  14. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    It's hard to run when the BS is so deep.
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    unprecedented

    NASA uses the word with the following qualifications.

    [​IMG]

    1 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

    B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

    Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

    V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

    B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

    this paper pushes the time frame of rate of temp increases back to about 2500 years BP.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/01/12/science.1197175.abstract

    what is undeniably unprecedented is the fact that the burning of fossil fuels has altered the atmospheric chemistry. And those alterations, in the words of NASA.

     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.