I was visiting with some dear old friends this afternoon. The talk turned to politics and Gore's movie was recommended to me. She made the claim that no credible scientists fail to believe in the theory of global warming. He, usually less extreme in outlook, jumped right in and seconded her argument. I know there are wackos on both sides, but are there really no legitimate group of scientists who can reasonably disprove the theory of global warning? Emphasis is on reasonably....
"Reasonable" is a very relative term. In general almost all scientists whose field is climate are in agreement while many of the most prominent doubters of global warming aren't climate scientists so their opinions are considered less reasonable than someone's who expertise is in the field. There are also many scientists both in and out of the field of climatology who disagree on the extent of global warming and its causes but in general its almost unanimous among all reasonable scientists that global warming is happening.
There is little argument against global warming, it's supported by an almost overwhelming 'body' of both hard and empirical evidence. The debate has mostly been centered around the 'causation' of global warming, not whether or not it's reality.
Most of the very few reputable scientists who oppose global warming tend to have very strong financial ties to the energy industry. There is reasonable debate among people about exactly how the mechanisms of global warming will actually play out. There is also a natural periodic shift in global temprature which is related to the sun which clouds the understanding of whether a particular shift is normal, natural, and cyclical, or something to be seriously woried about. In my experience most of the debate against global warming centers around emphasising this disagreement in process as fundimental evidence that global warming doesn't exist. As far as I can tell this is intentional obfuscation.
It’s been a few years since I’ve taken any related classes, but it used to be that the proof that global warming was happening was very overstated. Modelling weather patterns is an extremely complicated thing to do and the models that claimed to prove global warming was happening relied on huge assumptions that made them much more political than scientific. This was unfortunate because it discredited them in the eyes of many serious scientists and knowledgeable members of the public, and this was a completely unnecessary and counterproductive tactic, imo. I suspect that it’s still true that there is no positive proof that global warming is happening, but whether there is or not is irrelevant if you think it through. I think that there’s no doubt that it’s very plausible that global warming is happening, that the logic is sound and that there is a high probability that it’s happening, and this along with the consequences that would result if it is happening are all that should be needed to take action on it. If you blindfold yourself and run onto a freeway in rush hour can anyone prove that you will be hit by a car? I think it would be difficult to prove that you would for sure be hit, but the consequences of being hit by a speeding car combined with the clearly high probability of being hit ought to be enough to make you choose not to do it. It’s likewise with global warming. The logic behind it is sound and most of the evidence seems to show that it is happening, and if it is the consequences will be severe, so there is only one reasonable course of action given those conditions and that is to take action to stop or limit it from happening. The question of whether there is poof that it’s happening is really a meaningless diversion, and one that has, imo, done more to discredit many who want actions taken against global warming than it has to support them. Ask yourself the simple question, why does it matter if there is 100% proof? If there isn’t 100% proof that you would be hit by a car if you blindfold yourself and ran onto a freeway in rush hour, would you go ahead and do it? I believe the two are really the same question and should bring you to the same answer.
No, but I do want to. With little ones in the house, I just don't get out that much! All I've seen in the last six months were United 93 and World Trade Center. Here's the thing my friend said that threw me for a loop: ~"It's a "myth" that there are credible scientists who don't believe in global warming." I went "WHOA".... She said that no one anywhere has successfully disputed the claims made by the Gore movie. I went "WHOA" again. She tends to be extreme in her viewpoints, but then her husband who is more moderate chimed in in agreement. Anyway, they are coming over for dinner soon and I need ANSWERS.
It is not a "myth" that there are no reputable scientists who oppose global warming. There are a couple out of 10,000. They receive about 50% of the publicity as the fossil fuel pr guys gets there opinions constantly published and the media under their psuedo neutrality doctirne of quoting both sides quotes them over and over.
Frankly, no. There are legitimate scientists that debate the cause, but they don't make any sense. They also are often linked to "interest groups" that are merely corporate oil PR firms. This is quite accurate - Gore makes this point very well in the movie. (edited because glynch's post made little sense initially)
my question isn't whether or not it's happening. my question is whether this is part of a regular cycle. are the cooling cycles and warming cycles and are we going through them. this was not a particularly hot summer for houston, for instance. we had our coolest july in years. we seem to have skirted the tail end of summer here in september (remember how hot it was during the rita evacuations last year around this time?). and i recognize i can't extrapolate out for the rest of the world here in houston. but it would seem to me that we would be having record-breaking heat here in houston. this is not the hottest summer on record. i believe 1938 is the hottest global summer on record. we were told that we'd see more superstorms this summer...more intensely developed hurricanes. that this would just be life now. well, maybe not, huh? and hurricanes seem to run in cycles, themselves. i know this was a part of gore's movie that bothered even those who support it otherwise, because they felt it was reaching. (p.s. wind shear is a b**** on hurricanes) i guess i'm just confused as to how much of this change is natural/cyclical. having said that...even if we're not contributing to it as much as claimed, i recognize that clean air/water are in and of themselves important things and that we should always be taking steps to reduce pollution. that's just being a good steward of what we have.
Human contribution to GL has been decidedly proved in the past few months. I have posted the link twice and it has been ignored. Oh well. People see what they want to see. btw, we don't own the Earth. We are the earth. What we do to it we do to ourselves.
I can try to explain (keep in mind that I do not claim to understand everything - but I have done a lot of global warming research and study). First, dissociate weather and global warming. Global warming is rather simple to see - ther overall trend (minor deviations notwithstanding) is hotter, not cooler. Weather, however, is terribly complicated. Models to predict weather activity are not as accurate as "experts" would like you to believe. Your example of "superstorms" is perfect - there is strong evidence and scientific rationale to associate stronger storms with warmer water, and in turn higher air temperatures - i.e., global warming. However, the models are just not to the point that one can make the outrageous predicitons we hear hurricane "experts" give. It's just not that simple. Which is why historical data is so important. You can follow a trend that some things are increasing - particularly temperature and CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Things like hurricanes are bad examples, as the data is not as historically verbose, nor is the correlation well understood. CO2, and temperature is cyclical, to a point. During an ice age, plants die, causeing CO2 buildup since photoshynthesis is no longer producing oxygen at the same rate. This causes CO2 to buildup, raising the temperature, and melting the ice. The plants come back, and the CO2 diminishes. Rinse and repeat. So called "experts" like Lindzen like to proclaim this as "fact" that temperature and global warming is "cyclical". What they disnegeniously forget to mention is that CO2 concentrations in the last 100 years have skyrocketed well beyond enything ever seen in the ice core samples. Lindzen and the rest of the "global warming deniers" are talking about large scale climate patterns, not the very recent deviation seen since the advent of the industrial revolution. Hopefully the pics show what I'm talking about, particularly the 3rd one down. Now couple that one (carbon dioxide variations) to the temperature record during the industrial revolution. The correlation is hard to deny. Looking at the weather merely from year-to-year makes it difficult to see the whole picture. There is a lot more discussion in this thread - although you'll need to ignore the banter.
What caused the last Ice Age? Couldn't a rise in temperatures just be a natural thing? Don't get me wrong, we've definately done our part and then some in regards to the topic.
CO2 decreases too much, causing temperatures to fall. It's a natural cycle that the industrial revolution has perturbed (or majorly sped up, depending on your viewpoint). The "mini" ice age in Europe was caused by melting glacial ice in North America cooling down the N. Atlantic so much that the thermohaline current shut down.
Arguments are often like Science The initial Slant colors the whole thing They say NO ONE CAN DISPROVE IT tha Does not mean that it has been PROVEN only that it cannot be DISPROVEN that is not the same thing Rocket River
Just to clarify, there is certainly proof that global warming in general is happening, but whether man made global warming is happening or whether it’s part of a natural cycle is the real issue. Rhad certainly posted some good info there are other indicators that suggest that man induced global warning is happening too. So with lots of evidence suggesting that it is happening, and dire consequences quite likely ahead if it is, why would anyone get hung up on the question of whether there is absolute proof that it’s happening? That’s what I’ve always found frustrating about the issue. (btw Max, I still haven’t read Velvet Elvis yet but I love the Rain video and am looking forward to getting the book. )
