Welcome to Gaia! ::

Definitions:

Climate Change - The change in climate over time, typically viewed on a global level.
Global Warming (GW) - Climate change that results in warming.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - Global warming caused by human actions.
IPCC - International Panel on Climate Change; formed by the UN, this releases reports every five years detailing the current "scientific view" on global warming.
TAR and 4AR - Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, respectively, released by the IPCC.


There are far more definitions that could be offered for the subject. I will try to add any terms as needed throughout the discussion. Feel free to ask about any you do not understand.

Ok, I've always had a question about this- what would anyone gain by faking climate change?

Maybe it's narrowminded, but I see it like this; there are two potential explainations. One: global warming is not happening. The ice caps aren't really melting, we're not experiencing bizarre, stronger weather patterns, we're not losing arctic species, and coral reefs aren't dying out due to water temperature variation. None of this is going on, but environmentalists say it is just because they hate industry so much that they're using scare tactics to encourage government regulation on emissions and hurt the profits of virtually every industry that involves transportation.

So in option one, the liberal commies are conning the world to drive prices for consumer goods higher and send the world into a futile panic- and faking a lot of natural phenomena in the meantime.

Option two, global warming is happening but industry (who stands to lose a lot in the short term) and some politicians who support industry (who also stand to lose a lot in the short term) want to blame it on the liberal commie lies.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but it seems to me that the second explaination makes the most sense.

That, and what do you mean there is no evidence for global warming? The mechanism is sound- we know that greenhouse gasses trap short-wave radiation from the sun. We know how much carbon dioxide goes into the biosphere compared to what the natural carbon sinks can absorb. Not only is that just physics and chemistry at work, we can see it on Venus. Beyond that, there has been a rise in average world temperatures, a depletions of coral reefs, a melting of the ice caps- list the natural system, and we can probably show you how it's been effected by the depletion of the carbon sinks.

There is no question as to whether global warming is happening or not. The only question is as to whether humans or causing it or not. It's really hard to fake a rise in ambient sea temperatures.

I guess that pretty much sums it up.

For me it's not so much a question if those stating climate change is happening or those denying it are knowing the truth (IMHO none does, we don't have yet really accurate climate models and we're far off from understanding all the mechanisms involved). What bothers me more is rather what should we do.

Obviously we seem to have to possible ways to go:
1) continue like we did
2) reducing our resource consumption and thus on the level of carbon dioxide that is emittet

Way 1) is obviously the cheap one, though it will run into problems too. E.g. Peak oil is one of those problems, so I'd say it's pretty save to state that the costs for all energy we need will raise and we will need to have measures at our disposal when that happens.

Way 2) will need more involvement and investments. E.g. how to convert (produce, though we know that on the physical level energy cannot be created) and store energy efficiently, how to use it more efficiently.

I'll just take the easy path and argue along Pascal's Wager (for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager).

Let's say we got just two possible evolutions of our climate (It's continuing to warm [A] or it's not ) and two possible reactions (1 & 2 as described above). Now let's have a look on the possible outcomes when combining those.

A1 (global warming and no reduction of carbon dioxid):
Current climate models would indicate that it gets warmer. Consequences may be melting of polarcaps and glaciers, enventually dissolving of methan hydrates in the oceans releasing even more glas house gases. To me that seems to look like disasters which costs we can't even estimate today.

B1 (no global warming and no reduction of carbon dioxid):
Nothing happened and we didn't panic. Now we can face other important problems (e.g. our level resource consumption [see below])

B2 (no global warming with reduction of carbon dioxid):
We seem to have dealt with lemons, though I don't realy see those reductions as bad investments. Let's face it we need energy so badly that we are willing to send troops around the earth to keep the supplies coming in, we don't know how long it will keep coming anyway (peek oil date estimations seem to differ enormously depending on who did them) and the amout of energy we consume is still going rather up than down. As there can't be infinite growth that system is bound to crash some day.

A2 (global warming with reduction of carbon dioxide):
The remaining question is where our investments big enough to either stop global warming or to delay it enough so that we have still options to choose.

To me reaction 2 (invest in reduction of resource consumption and CO2 emissions) is the clear winner, no matter if global warning happens or not. Discussions if the global warming is happening should remain on the scientific level, for political discussions the questions what can be done and which possible technical options we should choose are more important.

For the most part, there are not criticisms of people faking climate change (or rather, AGW). The criticisms are usually (at least by reasonable people) directed at specific claims, or pieces of "evidence." There would be little to gain for faking AGW as a whole, though i suppose some might be willing to try.

On the issue of "faking" specific parts of the AGW theory, there are plenty of reasons it might happen. For example, Michael Mann's key piece of work, the MBH98, has been shown repeatedly to be bunk. There is decent reason to suspect he knew this was true beforehand. So why would he have published it anyways? Simple personal gain. Mann had gotten his PhD. shortly before writing the paper. He was pretty much completely unheard of prior to the paper, but after he published it, he became an extremely important person in the AGW discussion. Because of that paper's radical results, he has testified in front of Congress, has published a number of influential papers, and was even a lead author of a IPCC assessment report. His claims, now known to be false, greatly boosted his career.

But then there are others. Unlike Mann, who has an entire career riding on this faulty work, there are plenty of honest people supporting the AGW claims. I suspect a number of these people support the "consensus" because they honestly believe it. The problem is, i suspect a number of these people may be responsible for faulty work. I think this video might help explain why they might do it

Basically, it says people go with the crowd, but you really ought to watch it.

And of course, there is also the bureaucratic stuff, which is somewhat responsible (temperature station issues, for example). I am sure there are other possible reasons, but this should give you an idea of how the "consensus" could be wrong.





There is not much dissent on whether global warming is happening (though there is some, and it is not clearly settled). Questions which should be asked are, "To what extent are humans causing it?" and "Why should we care?"



There is no conclusive data to show weather patterns are more severe now than ever or that arctic species are in any serious danger. There is reasonable doubt currently as to how much of the coral bleaching is caused by global warming, as opposed to other factors. Heck, there is not even clear cut science demonstrating each of these would happen, were claims on AGW true (there is suggestive evidence for some of it).

As for the ice caps, there is insufficient data to show global warming, much less anthropogenic global warming is the source of increased melting, especially when the severity of the problem is so poorly understood.



This is just a straw man. Serious skeptics do not make claims like this, and i have demonstrated understandable reasons other than this.



While there are certainly people suggesting this, there is no reason to believe it is the case.



Sure, when you set up straw men, it is easy to defeat them. The most likely explanation is the majority of misinformation is produced by honest people, who honestly think they are doing the right thing. There are some people intentionally misleading others, but there is little reason to believe they make up a significant portion.



A simplified explanation, but yes. I have never questioned the greenhouse effect, as it is. There is fairly strong science to suggest a doubling of CO2 levels should cause an increase of approximately one degree Celsius, as i recall. However, the current "consensus" view gives the estimate of 2.5 degrees. The difference is made up in a concept called "feedbacks," which basically are side effects of the increased CO2 levels which will indirectly impact temperatures, in either positive or negative directions. The quantification of feedbacks is largely substandard, with poor quality in most estimates.

It sounds good to say, "The greenhouse effect is obvious!" but it does little to support the AGW claims.



We "know" how much carbon dioxide is released by estimates, and we "know" what CO2 levels are by stations with possible problems. We "know" how much CO2 the CO2 sinks can absorb, primarily by estimates which are largely untested. On that issue, my knowledge is somewhat lacking, so i am not in a position to discredit claims. However, considerin the problems faced in paleoclimatology, it is impossible to simply accept each other portion of the AGW belief. It is possible paleoclimatology is unique, but given the systematic flaws in it, a serious audit should be done of the entire theory (which has never happened).



I will try to make more detailed posts on some of these topics later (as i have in the main topic in ED:S&T), but there is nowhere near the certainty you claim. Indeed, the surface stations used to measure temperatures face large, systematic problems...

You know, rather than respond to posts like this, how about a slightly different approach. Rather than just posting erratic thoughts, how about we use a more structured approach. Namely, if there are topics anyone would like discussed, they can just post them, and i will try to cover them as best i can (and other people are welcome to respond as well). At the same time, if anyone has evidence or reasons to share/debate, they can do the same. The key here, is for a debate to be effective, it needs to be fairly structured.

Offhand, the topics which come to mind are:



Each of these is important in regards to AGW, and each category has numerous problems which call into question parts of the AGW theories. Now then, rather than debate the theory of AGW itself, i propose the debate/discussion be focused onto individual categories. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, feel free to explain why. Otherwise, i will make a post on one of these topics in the next few days. If you have a preference on which of these, or if you would like to discuss another topic, feel free to let me know.

P.S. It will be easier if we agree to use the definitions of GW, AGW and climate change already posted. If you think a definition needs to be modified, feel free to say so,

Edit: I forgot to respond to something rather important.



The current sea temperature records use the assumption all naval ships switched from bucket measurements to engine inlets in 1941, despite the majority of measurements in 1971 being bucket measurements. The "adjustments" made to account for the overnight change in measurement method (which did not happen), should have a meaningful impact on the sea temperature records.

I do not know just what impact this issue would have, but it merits a meticulous examination of sea surface temperature (SST) records. None has ever been done.

After a good deal of thought, i decided on an approach to this discussion. The idea is simple. First, ground work will be laid out. This will be a simple statement designed to sum up what can be agreed upon by all sides. Once that has been decided, the discussion can continue onto any points upon which there is disagreement. The statement i created is as follows, and any suggestions on it are more than welcome:

Though I can not say I stand firmly on one side or another, I do think that the result of people believing in global warming will be one later generations can all respect; efficiency in design. Needless to say, someday we will run out of fossil fuels. Why not start making efficient, earth friendly designs now, regardless of global warming or not? Really, what harm can come.

Heh. Besides, the Earth has recovered from numerous Super Volcanic eruptions. . .plagues. . .alien objects annihilating the surface--really, what can it not survive? As stated, life will go on. Humans are just to egotistical; selfish, in a way--trying to take the blame for everything.

Whatever.

Salaam~

There is not enough evidence to prove Global Warming does or does not exist.