Support NeoGAF

[Flying_Phoenix]

Isn't it obvious that global warming is something that happens but has been happening significantly when you look at time in big chunks? (Like every 50 years or so?

kosmo we all know alaska is a myth propagated by the liberal media.

Is it wrong that I laughed out loud to this?gradually

 

[Chumly]

We have a little over a hundred years of data for a planet that is millions of years old...
I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, but it's not simply because of humans.

You do realize that the people studying climate change realize that there are other factors that contribute to seasonal extremes? The overwhelming consensus is that the earth is warming and the factor is man made pollution. Unless your going to try and tell me that smoking a pack a day doesn't increase your changes of lung cancer. Because i mean there is a THOUSAND other factors that could lead to the lung cancer!

 

[Evlar]

Isn't it obvious that global warming is something that happens but has been happening significantly when you look at time in big chunks? (Like every 50 years or so?



Is it wrong that I laughed out loud to this?gradually

I'm not sure I can believe this. Have you been laughing in the past 13 seconds?

 

[AceBandage]

You do realize that the people studying climate change realize that there are other factors that contribute to seasonal extremes? The overwhelming consensus is that the earth is warming and the factor is man made pollution. Unless your going to try and tell me that smoking a pack a day doesn't increase your changes of lung cancer. Because i mean there is a THOUSAND other factors that could lead to the lung cancer!

The difference being that we can measure the effects of smoking in a few years.
The same can't be said for global weather.

Again, not saying the climate isn't changing, but it's not as simple as the entire Earth will become a hot mess.
Some parts will get warmer, some will get colder, some will be relatively uninfected.

 

[Kosmo]

We have thousands and thousands of years of climate data.

We have surrogate data - and are making assumptions on warming on the order of a couple degrees. You have confidence that those surrogate temperatures don't have a 95% confidence interval of more than a degree?

 

[Elfforkusu]

The difference being that we can measure the effects of smoking in a few years.
The same can't be said for global weather.

Again, not saying the climate isn't changing, but it's not as simple as the entire Earth will become a hot mess.
Some parts will get warmer, some will get colder, some will be relatively uninfected.

Okay, nitpick: it's not weather, it's climate. It's hard to get a handle on weather, it's too random and we don't have fine-grained data. Climate is much more easily quantifiable, because it's simply measuring trends.

Yes, some areas will get cooler, that's why "climate change" is the term atmospheric scientists/meteorologists/etc use. "global warming" refers to the fact that the average global temperature is increasing. "anthropogenic climate change" refers to the fact that it's not the sun, not volcanoes, not cosmic rays, not the tooth fairy, but humans that are responsible for this.

 

[speedpop]

This is completely conjecture and generally using nothing more than the knowledge of altitude, but wouldn't the highest peaks of the globe retain the ice no matter what?

 

[Evlar]

This is completely conjecture and generally using nothing more than the knowledge of altitude, but wouldn't the highest peaks of the globe retain the ice no matter what?

It's a complex relationship between precipitation rates and melting rates, which are themselves a matter of temperature and cloud cover. Local increase in temperature may be coincident with glacial growth, in certain circumstances.

 

[Ri'Orius]

We have surrogate data - and are making assumptions on warming on the order of a couple degrees. You have confidence that those surrogate temperatures don't have a 95% confidence interval of more than a degree?

Good point, Koz. Clearly those climate guys have never taken a stats course in their life.

Or, y'know, they have. Maybe the guys with the lab coats, the PhDs, and the decades of experience working with this data have a better idea of its limitations than you do? Maybe?

Nah, never mind. I forgot that they're all in Margaret Thatcher's pocket.

 

[Chumly]

The difference being that we can measure the effects of smoking in a few years.
The same can't be said for global weather.

Again, not saying the climate isn't changing, but it's not as simple as the entire Earth will become a hot mess.
Some parts will get warmer, some will get colder, some will be relatively uninfected.

Based off what? This is like the tobacco companies arguing that everyone has a chance of getting lung cancer.

I will repeat myself. Scientists that are studying climate change understand that their are a number of factors that can affect weather and they take those into account for seasonal extremes. Data has shown that there is a warming trend on a global basis that has been much more rapid that in other periods of time. It can be contributed to pollution. To blindly ignore the data and just say "the earth is always changing" is a cop out answer.

What exactly is your argument that the earth is not warming due to human cause? Is it just magic? god?

 

[KHarvey16]

We have surrogate data - and are making assumptions on warming on the order of a couple degrees. You have confidence that those surrogate temperatures don't have a 95% confidence interval of more than a degree?

What accuracy requirements are there to use the data the way in which the scientists are using them? Are these being met? As these papers are the result of a peer review process, the burden here is on you. Show us.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Here's some skeptical science that predates this story:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction-intermediate.htm

This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).

On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores and accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).

While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).

But wait, clearly this contradicts the article in the OP! Conspiracy! Wait, what's the time scale in the OP?

But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

...oh.

Climate change denial arguments are so meta. "AGW sheep are misrepresenting the evidence! See?!?! *misrepresents evidence*"

 

[GaimeGuy]

Who says climate change isn't going on? When has Earth's climate NOT changed? The questions are whether 1) Man contributes to it 2) If so, to what degree/significance 3) If the current change going on will really have any impact (and are they necessarily negative impacts)?

We know man's contributions because of the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide, and the fact that we pour a fuckton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we can measure such effects in simulations using airtight chambers we pump CO2 into.

It's not fucking rocket science.

 

[Something Wicked]

Watching the righties use the word "religion" as a pejorative term is somewhat amusing.

Who says I'm religious?

Okay, to be serious for a bit.

Shockingly enough, I'm not one of them fancy climaterologists with their college DEE-grees and such. In fact, I don't know much about climatology in general. I wouldn't be surprised if even someone like Kosmo legitimately knows more about the science then I do. But like with most situations, one would think you would go with whatever side the scientific consensus is on.

-97%+ of oncologists believe in a causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
-97%+ of biologists believe in evolution
-97%+ of geologists believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
-97%+ of the medical community doesn't think that treating diabetes with exorcisms is appropriate.


So why the heck do we agree with the scientific consensus on pretty much everything BUT global warming?

Why must people use other (obviously true) scientific facts to justify their belief in AGW? There is reason why AGW is controversial- it's due to how absurd many of claims that many climatologists/activists make using data with very high degrees of error.

We know man's contributions because of the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide, and the fact that we pour a fuckton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we can measure such effects in simulations using airtight chambers we pump CO2 into.

It's not fucking rocket science.

Tell me: what wavelengths of light does the linear molecule of CO2 absorb?

We have thousands and thousands of years of climate data.

And tell me: how are temperature values extrapolated from ice core samples? What is the process?

And do not just slap some link and say "it's in here." Explain your answer in your own words.

 

[Kurdel]

Let's dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and demand random people on the Internet to prove anthropomorphic climate change is happening.

 

[Something Wicked]

Let's dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and demand random people on the Internet to prove anthropomorphic climate change is happening.

Ever consider that perhaps some "random people on the internet" may have highly technical backgrounds and can read and analyze scientific reports by themselves?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I appreciate Kosmo

 

[ToxicAdam]

Here's some skeptical science that predates this story:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction-intermediate.htm


But wait, clearly this contradicts the article in the OP! Conspiracy! Wait, what's the time scale in the OP?

...oh.

Climate change denial arguments are so meta. "AGW sheep are misrepresenting the evidence! See?!?! *misrepresents evidence*"

Individual glaciers or clusters of mountain ice caps retreating/gaining ice are localized events. Increase in industry (black carbon), dramatic changes in land use (deforestation) or regional weather trends have a much greater effect than any kind of 'worldwide global warming'

So, if there is a study saying that some measureable amount of ice is melting from the western mountaintops of China, you only need to look at the explosion of coal mining and power plants in that region (over the same time frame) to figure out why. Google 'China Coal Fires' if you want. Then google 'Black carbon effect on ice' if you want more information.

Let's dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus and demand random people on the Internet to prove anthropomorphic climate change is happening.

Thank goodness consensus can't be corrupted by confirmation bias and tribalism. Oh wait ..

 

[Kurdel]

Ever consider that perhaps some "random people on the internet" may have highly technical backgrounds and can read and analyze scientific reports by themselves?

What are your expectations? Quizzing people and demanding they explain scientific principles while ignoring 99% of the experts in the feild? If some random person on the Intenet happens to come to a realistic and scientific conclusion outside of your warped worldview, you would discredit them and find excuses.

It is always the same ridiculous game when it comes to people with baseless/fringe views.

 

[Pandaman]

And tell me: how are temperature values extrapolated from ice core samples? What is the process?

And do not just slap some link and say "it's in here." Explain your answer in your own words.

There are two possibilities here; the first being that you don't know how temperature values are pulled from ice cores in which case one wonders why you are arguing against something you don't understand. The second is that you do understand it and you either accept them as valid data or you have some hilarious 'reasoning' on why its not valid. Either way it doesn't really matter if kharvey is capable of explaining it in his own words, so why should he?

 

[Zaptruder]

Dear global warming deniers...

What do you think we should do in the hypothetical situation where anthropogenic global warming is indeed as real and as threatening as 'liberal agenda climatologists' have made it out to be?

That is, without significant and possibly disruptive change, we will continue to provide large scale temperature fluctuations to weather systems all around the world and to a lesser extent, raise the average global temperature (although still very quickly on a geological scale).

 

[Koodo]

In prairie-Canada, we've had a record-setting winter. Whereas normally we see -30C days, we've been seeing between 0 and -10 for most of the season so far. Absolutely mind-boggling.

I was walking out today with just a sweater. February 8th with just a sweater.

 

[Slavik81]

I was walking out today with just a sweater. February 8th with just a sweater.

So? You can walk around with just a tee-shirt in January sometimes. -30 one week, +10 the next is normal. There's no big energy sinks to regulate the temperature on the prairies.

 

[Pandaman]

its been extremely warm in ontario too. no permament snow yet.

 

[SlipperySlope]

If you think man-made climate change is a hoax, you're free to believe that. However, if you happen to be wrong, wouldn't it be better to create renewable, clean energy either way? Its like opponents of man-made climate change just want people to give them a license to dump waste and pollute to their heart's content.

Not if it isn't cost effective.

 

[Zaptruder]

Not if it isn't cost effective.

What if its cost effective when amortized and externalities are accounted for?

Spoiler

Do you even understand those concepts?

 

[Myansie]

It is cost effective. The major problem facing green alternatives is the political and economic pressures derived from non green power sources. Namely oil and coal. Think about what happened when the Global Financial Crisis happened. That was a bubble created by over zealous lending for mortgages. The amount of money invested in oil by comparison is gigantic and most of it is speculative. They are investing with the view that it is going to be pouring for a long time to come. If some one were to invent an engine that ran on water tomorrow, the entire oil economy would collapse. This is what`s stopping governments pushing a green agenda. Look at Iraq, that was about oil. The conspiracy has nothing to do with Climate Change, it`s about maintaining control through the economics of oil.

 

[apana]

What if its cost effective when amortized and externalities are accounted for?

Spoiler

Do you even understand those concepts?

Is this like when they told us in California that they could build a high speed railroad with ten billion dollars and a few years of development time?

 

[Jonm1010]

Who says I'm religious?




Why must people use other (obviously true) scientific facts to justify their belief in AGW? There is reason why AGW is controversial- it's due to how absurd many of claims that many climatologists/activists make using data with very high degrees of error.




Tell me: what wavelengths of light does the linear molecule of CO2 absorb?




And tell me: how are temperature values extrapolated from ice core samples? What is the process?

And do not just slap some link and say "it's in here." Explain your answer in your own words.

AGW is controversial simply because political forces influenced by large corporate interests have a vested interest in keeping the status quo in tact to maximize their businesses profit.

That is the ONLY reason. Same reason why 60 years ago it was CONTROVERSIAL to say that smoking caused lung cancer, birth defects and harmed people in the vicinity of it. Even though 97% of scientists back then agreed as well.

 

[CiSTM]

IPCC wrong again? Well I never! I really want that EU starts another panel to do it's own research so we can compare the findings of these to panels and see if it's really worth keep funding any of these guys.

IPCC Criticism

 

[Joni]

I was walking out today with just a sweater. February 8th with just a sweater.

The first 20 years of my life I could walk around with just a sweater in February. Now I need to wear a sweater and two coats because Europe is having a real cold winter. Local anecdotes don't prove anything. It is anecdotes like that that lead to the Global Cooling theories of the 70s. They had a couple of cold years, so everyone named it global cooling.

People should really stop naming it global warming though to make it less confusing. The end result won't be a warmer climate for everyone, but will depend on the regions. Europe will get colder. It is going to lead to an extremer climate.

 

[Bo-Locks]

Climate change has always been a very strange issue to me. I'm a researcher in a Chemistry department, so I'm used to reading and analysing scientific literature, but when I'm performing, for example an experiment, everything is self-contained and distilled down to its bare minimum state, so that even the most complex chemical reactions can be simplified and fundamentally understood on a microscopic scale.

Climate change is the complete opposite of that. The system is so large, so variable, so complex and dynamic that it is extremely difficult to model, test and understand on such a level. I understand and fully accept the greenhouse effect and the effect of black carbon deposits on Antarctica, since they are very simple concepts that I can appreciate on a microscopic level and then translate onto a macroscopic level, but I take some of what I read about climate change with a pinch of salt.

My issues with climate change science is that it is such a complicated area that is still in its relative infancy, so there will naturally be a lot of conflicting information, data and models by various groups. I do not doubt that man is having an effect on the world's climate, but I question the extent of this effect, the planets natural coping mechanisms and the consequences of climate change that are reported by much of the media. These are again extremely difficult questions to answer. The researchers and the general media, which has allowed the politicisation of this fundamental research, which is lamentable, have also poorly communicated the science not just to the wider scientific community, but to the general public at large.

So just to make myself clear, I am not a climate change denier, but I do understand why some people doubt it and I also question some aspects of it myself. I am still in favour of increasing spending in this area of scientific research, reducing oil consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and finding alternative sources of energy, so it all amounts to the same for me.

Just my two cents.

 

[fanboi]

 

[XMonkey]

Is this like when they told us in California that they could build a high speed railroad with ten billion dollars and a few years of development time?

Ya. Exactly like that.

 

[dragonelite]

what is our sample data if its only 200 years.
And the earth is 4~5 billion years old.

And so far that i know almost everything in this universe works in a cycle.
Those 200 years would be like taking a glass of water at the beach and conclude that there are no whales in the oceans because you didn't find one in you're glass.

Those 200 years are just to little data.

So yeah im not sure on Man being the cause of global warming/cooling but im more concerned about environmental damage we cause. There are so many specimen of plants and animals we probably killed off that could hold break through in science and medicine.

 

[CiSTM]

what is our sample data if its only 200 years.
And the earth is 4~5 billion years old.

And so far that i know almost everything in this universe works in a cycle.
Those 200 years would be like taking a glass of water at the beach and conclude that there are no whales in the oceans because you didn't find one in you're glass.

Those 200 years are just to little data.

So yeah im not sure on Man being the cause of global warming/cooling but im more concerned about environmental damage we cause. There are so many specimen of plants and animals we probably killed off that could hold break through in science and medicine.

We do have methods of calculating data far beyond those 200 years. We have plant life that has survived thousnds of years, mountains and caves that show signs of different types of erosion, we have forever ice that shows sings of different types of climate long as you drill deep enough and etc. Still I'm very critical at IPCC since they downplay their mistakes and don't give much respect for peer reviewed works that go against their findings. Climate change is real but whether humans has significant part in it remains as a question mark, until more evidence shows up.

And one more thing:

One of the reasons the document is error-prone is in the width of its scope, experts say. A description of consequences of climate change all over the world is bound to touch on areas few people know anything about. In its report, the IPCC draws on publications assessed by outside scientists, reports from organisations like the World Bank and management consulting firm McKinsey, and even descriptions from tourist guides and observations from volunteers. Those sources have to be supported by others and are scrutinised through "qualitative analysis". But a problem in the analysis is there are few scientists in the world who know a lot about regional effects. Few people have enough knowledge and insight to predict longtime trends in ice development in the Himalaya, for example.

Especially the bolded part was ridiculous when it was outed that one of the reasearch studies about Himalayas was based on findings and amusings of local tour guides :/

 

[KHarvey16]

And tell me: how are temperature values extrapolated from ice core samples? What is the process?

And do not just slap some link and say "it's in here." Explain your answer in your own words.

Pandaman is right, but this process is pretty straight forward, generally: There's a linear relationship between temperature and the ratio of oxygen isotopes found in the air bubbles trapped in the ice.

 

[scar tissue]

If you think man-made climate change is a hoax, you're free to believe that. However, if you happen to be wrong, wouldn't it be better to create renewable, clean energy either way? Its like opponents of man-made climate change just want people to give them a license to dump waste and pollute to their heart's content.

This.
Even if global warming is wrong, you're still killing animals, plants, and entire ecosystems with your filth.
I hate ignorant people like Palin who think nature should be infinitely looted because it was made for man, by god.

 

[Always-honest]

ok, but it doesn't mean that we still aren't polluting shit and fucking up.

Indeed. That's exactly how people will react to this.
Retarded dads around the world will shout laughing: "you see, i was right!"

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Climate change has always been a very strange issue to me. I'm a researcher in a Chemistry department, so I'm used to reading and analysing scientific literature, but when I'm performing, for example an experiment, everything is self-contained and distilled down to its bare minimum state, so that even the most complex chemical reactions can be simplified and fundamentally understood on a microscopic scale.

Climate change is the complete opposite of that. The system is so large, so variable, so complex and dynamic that it is extremely difficult to model, test and understand on such a level. I understand and fully accept the greenhouse effect and the effect of black carbon deposits on Antarctica, since they are very simple concepts that I can appreciate on a microscopic level and then translate onto a macroscopic level, but I take some of what I read about climate change with a pinch of salt.

My issues with climate change science is that it is such a complicated area that is still in its relative infancy, so there will naturally be a lot of conflicting information, data and models by various groups. I do not doubt that man is having an effect on the world's climate, but I question the extent of this effect, the planets natural coping mechanisms and the consequences of climate change that are reported by much of the media. These are again extremely difficult questions to answer. The researchers and the general media, which has allowed the politicisation of this fundamental research, which is lamentable, have also poorly communicated the science not just to the wider scientific community, but to the general public at large.

So just to make myself clear, I am not a climate change denier, but I do understand why some people doubt it and I also question some aspects of it myself. I am still in favour of increasing spending in this area of scientific research, reducing oil consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and finding alternative sources of energy, so it all amounts to the same for me.

Just my two cents.

Nice post. Pretty much sums up how I feel also.

 

[Trokil]

So if climate change is not human made, what would we have lost, if we use clean energy, organic food, reduce emissions and so on.

I still don't see the problem. Ok maybe Clarkson will not be able to drive around with a stupid Mercedes even his colleges think is a stupid car, but that's about it.

Maybe using less energy or using less natural resources is not the worst thing we could do. Building more efficient cars, houses and transportation is not going to kill us.

 

[Gr1mLock]

So if climate change is not human made, what would we have lost, if we use clean energy, organic food, reduce emissions and so on.

I still don't see the problem. Ok maybe Clarkson will not be able to drive around with a stupid Mercedes even his colleges think is a stupid car, but that's about it.

Maybe using less energy or using less natural resources is not the worst thing we could do. Building more efficient cars, houses and transportation is not going to kill us.

This outraged me so much that i think Im gonna go throw some batteries into a river.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So if climate change is not human made, what would we have lost, if we use clean energy, organic food, reduce emissions and so on.

I still don't see the problem. Ok maybe Clarkson will not be able to drive around with a stupid Mercedes even his colleges think is a stupid car, but that's about it.

Maybe using less energy or using less natural resources is not the worst thing we could do. Building more efficient cars, houses and transportation is not going to kill us.

If climate change is not man made, in the effort to find alternative fuels, we may be causing worldwide hunger/famine.

Just a couple of many articles dealing with this issue:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430252/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21898947

 

[ToxicAdam]

So if climate change is not human made, what would we have lost, if we use clean energy, organic food, reduce emissions and so on.

Maybe using less energy or using less natural resources is not the worst thing we could do. Building more efficient cars, houses and transportation is not going to kill us.

All of what you described is already happening without comprehensive legislation to 'battle global warming'.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Worth the repost:

I stand by the climate scientists, but I have always found this image annoying. CO2 is naturally abundant in our atmosphere. If does end up being a "Big Hoax" every bit of our effort to limit CO2 emissions will have been a waste. Separately though, a lot of those things are nice.

 

[KHarvey16]

Seeing a lot of people conflate the study of the potential effects of global warming with the study of the mechanisms driving it. Also a few seem to carry over their objections to proposed political solutions to global warming when looking at the validity of the science itself.

 

[Frankfurter]

All of what you described is already happening without comprehensive legislation to 'battle global warming'.

I don't see how you could possibly claim this considering that carbon emissions hit a record high in 2011 and are bound to increase.

 

[twobear]

Part of the problem IMO is that BOTH sides of this debate are operating on a completely antiquated notion of how science operates. One counter example =/= dead theory.

 

[masud]

Wow op take a geology class...

 

[Trokil]

If climate change is not man made, in the effort to find alternative fuels, we may be causing worldwide hunger/famine.

Just a couple of many articles dealing with this issue:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430252/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21898947

That's because we are still working on the idea of carbon based fuel. Even with that so called "eco fuel" it's a dead end.

There are alternatives, but because you would have to make some investments and people are actively lobbying against making these investments, they are not made. Oil companies pay more for lobbying than federal taxes in the US. If that's not working they are buying patents for solar energy and other clean energies, so they can not be used.

Solar energy is not wide spread, not because it's not efficient. Power companies want control over who is producing energy. If everybody is producing energy, they would lose that control, so they are actively lobbying against solar panels on every house.

Wind energy could satisfy 30% of our energy, but again, it's not in the interest of Power companies to have wide spread smaller wind energy plant. Big plants make more profit and they can also charge for the usage of the power grid, the power grid the tax payers payed in the first place.

If we would want it, we could already fill 50% of our energy with solar and wind, but nobody wants to start. If we would also start to use more efficient lighting or warming the effect would be even greater.