Do You Believe Human Activity Causes Harmful Climate Change?

[Jingthing]

The most funny theory i heard so far is that RICE cultivation is awfully bad for the environment

I am not aware of any such theory, but global warming does threaten rice production, which would lead to mass starvation. Raising beef of course is very dirty, its the farts ... and all the grain/oil needed to produce such an inefficient food source. If everyone radically reduced their red meat intake, that would be a big help. Edited December 14, 2009 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

A massive meteor hit would wipe out our species permanently unless we colonize space. The chance of such a hit within 50 to 100 years is very slim. Over hundreds of thousands of years, almost definite. The chances of global warming causing great damage in that same time period (50 to 100 years) is probable. If we don't act quickly, it will be too late. That is why the focus on this now. If we as a species get past this we are on the road to eventually colonizing space.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Jingthing

[gregb]

This isn't really a fair poll. The fact is, AGW is currently more of a religion than a science. Richard Feynman, who alas died before I could take Phys 1 from him at Caltech, had some great words of wisdom throughout the 70's on what makes good science and what is "cargo cult" science.

The fact is, it is beyond contest that CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect. You need only to look at Venus if there is any doubt in your mind. Only an idiot would say that it doesn't. However, does 400 part per million (0.04%) CO2 cause a significant effect? That is a much harder question. The only way it can is via "atmospheric forcing" which causes increased water vapor, and it is in turn the water vapor that is suspected of being the real green house killer gas.

Now the tricky parts come in, because climatologists are not honest here. At least the way Richard Feynman would define scientific honesty. Traditional science requires formulating a hypothesis, creating an experiment to test the predictions of that hypothesis, and then reformulating your hypothesis based on the outcome. The only way to do this directly for the AGW theory is to gather data for hundreds of years. This is because the time constants involved in the solutions to the differential equations that calculate forcing are variously anything from 75 - 150 years.

What climatologists do, and what the entire theory is based on, is to make computer models and simulate the atmosphere. But of course, this is only as good as the simulation they made in the first place. I spent alot of time making computer models of neurons in the brain for my thesis, and this is dramatically simpler than something like the entire ecosystem of a planet. I can tell you the ONLY way to know that a computer model is correct is to have a complete set of real world data to compare it against.

Very small changes in parameters can appear to fit the initial data well, but introduce wildly incorrect results over the entire run. I spent alot of my time exploring parameter space to get my theoretical models to fit the actual observed results. A climatologist simply does not have reliable data to compare against, unless they have developed a crystal ball I don't know about.

So the science is not settled. What is settled is that if you wish to get grant money or otherwise keep from being known as a pariah in the field you do not question the theory. If you make your own simulation that does not match with the approved theory, you tweak your simulation until it does match the approved theory. That is considered "correct." It's not really science, but it does get you published and that is all that matters.

AGW may or may not be true. Like cargo cults, it is more of a religion. You are either a true believer or you are a denialist. Those of us in the middle who try to see it for what it really is are spurned by both camps. I am simultaneously a true believer and a denialist depending on the extreme political views of the person I am talking with. Nobody likes me. Your poll didn't leave an option for that.

The reality is, the earth has gone through many periods of climate change in the past, and it is only extreme hubris that would allow us to believe we can have any control over what is happening. To be sure, dumping CO2 into an unstable ecosystem is probably not helpful, but I highly doubt not dumping CO2 is going to materially change the result. It might have a small effect, but the progressively more extreme modern conclusions need to be seen in the religious light they were made. AGW has long since stopped being science.

Of course, I don't need grant money, so I can afford to be sceptical. Still, I really wonder what Richard Feynman would say about all of this.

Here's one of his famous speeches for those of you interested:

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

[Jingthing]

This isn't really a fair poll.

You say that and then don't provide any arguments about what exactly is wrong with the poll. Hmmmmm.

[gregb]

This isn't really a fair poll.

You say that and then don't provide any arguments about what exactly is wrong with the poll. Hmmmmm.

I did. It was just buried.

I am simultaneously a true believer and a denialist depending on the extreme political views of the person I am talking with. Nobody likes me. Your poll didn't leave an option for that.

[Jingthing]

This isn't really a fair poll.

You say that and then don't provide any arguments about what exactly is wrong with the poll. Hmmmmm.

I did. It was just buried.

I am simultaneously a true believer and a denialist depending on the extreme political views of the person I am talking with. Nobody likes me. Your poll didn't leave an option for that.

Yes it did. Null option for outliers like you. The poll is very focused, attempting to determine a correlation between educational level and acceptance of global climate change theory. It is quite fair and objective in relation to that. I would like to do a new one relating religious beliefs to this topic, I am afraid of overdoing the polls on this matter. Maybe later. My theory is fundamentalists (in my view very irrational people) are more likely to not accept mainstream science. Atheists and agnostics, being the most rational people, are more likely to accept mainstream science.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Jingthing

[gregb]

Well, I chose No, but I didn't really like doing it. What I really wanted was a "30% yes/70% no" option.

Perhaps a better way to have phrased the poll would be asked to rate on a scale of 1-10 how much credence you gave to the theory. Not sure you can make a poll with 2 variables on this forum though. And a whole matrix might become clumsy.

[gregb]

Atheists and agnostics, being the most rational people, are more likely to accept mainstream science.

At the risk of getting offtrack, I would suspect you'll find atheists and agnostics are more critical of questionable science, and more accepting of well founded science. Fundamentalists are more likely to believe whatever is fed to them without regard to independent thought or proof. Mainstream is a very delicate word. AGW is definitely mainstream, but it is a political movement in the guise of science, rather than science itself.

If you honestly want a good answer, the way you phrase your question makes a big difference. I'd be interested in an answer as well, but TV is not exactly known to have a plethora of intelligent, reasoning posters. You might do better on another forum.

[Gerontion]

climatologist simply does not have reliable data to compare against, unless they have developed a crystal ball I don't know about.

Even within computer models, that's not true. They have past climate data against which they can judge the predictive power of their models.

However, does 400 part per million (0.04%) CO2 cause a significant effect?

A much more honest way of saying that is "does increasing by a third concentrations of CO2 cause a significant effect?" Besides, we know and have known for a century about the greenhouse effect on Earth - with lower levels of CO2 - so the answer to your question is yes.

it is only extreme hubris that would allow us to believe we can have any control over what is happening.

For someone who makes a deal over understanding science, it's a bid odd to see a religious argument being made. And besides, three billion years ago, cyanobacteria evolved the ability to photosynthesis and in the process poisoned the atmosphere with oxygen. If single-celled organisms can do it, so can we.

As I said in my post above, if it's all wrong then either there's an extraordinary mistake or there's an extraordinary con. You seem to be hinting that it's the latter but it would be insane - really, insane - to believe that without any supporting evidence. For anyone who's not an expert on this field - and the chances of someone who is an expert on this posting on a shitty forum like this is so vanishingly small that it's essentially impossible - the whole thing comes down to trust. Do you trust a shed load of experts or do you not? If you chose not, then you better have a pretty dam_n good reason not to trust them. This old chestnut of funding is wheeled out time after time but, again, I've never seen anything which makes me think that there's anything to it. Who are all these people who are being turned down for funding? There must be a lot of them by now so why aren't they kicking up a fuss? Have they been brought into the conspiracy too? And why doesn't this apply to everything else? Why not disbelieve the electron theory of electricity and instead go for the very-small-gremlin theory? It's the same dissembling bastards looking for research funding, after all.

Now, some might say, "Do you believe everything you're told?" To which the answer would be, no. Plenty of people are telling me that there's a huge conspiracy and I don't believe them because I've got no reason to. I do believe that the world is warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is increasing in concentration and that the former is being caused by the latter. I'm not a climate scientist - I have the knowledge of an educated layman who's taken an interest in this - but I do know that the first two parts of this are unarguably correct. The only thing which could be questioned is the causal link. Well, if CO2 isn't causing the world to warm we need to find (i) what is and (ii) what mechanism is suppressing the forcing effect of CO2? As far as I know, there isn't an answer to this.

[Jonathanpattaya]

I am unconvinced either way but tend to be a little skepical about the severity of human activity on climate change.

During the seventies and eighties the hole in the ozone layer was the hot topic, if you'll pardon the pun.

That turned out to be a load of poppycock.

The problem with discussion on forums about climate change - and quite a number of other topics too - is that for some reason everyone thinks their opinion counts, which is why you get people producing rubbish like this. There's not necessarily anything wrong with not being that informed on these matters but there's definitely something wrong with talking about serious topics when you clearly don't know what the hel_l you're on about. The ozone hole was real. And it still is. It's greatest extent was recorded in 2006. The reason you don't hear anything about it is partly because it's old news...and hence not news and also because the Montreal Protocol was very successful in phasing out CFCs and HCFCs. You can find details and nice colourful pictures at http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Of course the world is warming, of course humans are causing it, and of course, left unchecked, this will have disastrous results. If you don't believe this then - in light of the Oreskes or STATS studies, amongst others - you have to believe either (i) 1000s of scientists have independently made millions of mistakes all of which tend to confirm each other and which despite being subjected to probably greater scrutiny than any other scientific theory is history, pretty much nobody other than a handful of blogs - and the giants intellects of Fox News - has noticed or (ii) there is a global conspiracy which has run for decades, involved coordinating the falsification of millions of data points, and - despite their wildly competing interests - thousands of scientists, hundreds of journals, corporations, NGOs, media organisations and pretty much every government of the world. And every - yes, every - scientific body or organisation of international standing. Dan Brown would be embarrassed by something like that but it is logically possible. However, to believe either of these you would need some pretty astonishing evidence. So where is it? It's just not there. The CRU emails? Don't be ridiculous. Go ahead and believe it's all a mistake or it's all a con but if you do, you're making a wildly unreasonable choice and you rule yourself out of all further adult conversation.

The whole point of any forum is to allow people to debate their views.

Why do you consider that this is a problem and who are you to take such a patronising stance and dimiss my post as rubbish? What qualifies you to have a more informed opinion than me or anyone else. Where do we all get our knowledge from and based on that form an opinion on a subject?

There are other schools of thought other than your own on the existence of the ozone layer and the hole in it just as there are different opinions on global warming.

If you cannot tolerate the fact that individuals are entitiled to believe what they want then perhaps you should refrain from websites such as this.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Jonathanpattaya

[Ulysses G.]

The scientists all seem to support the no side.

[gregb]

As I said in my post above, if it's all wrong then either there's an extraordinary mistake or there's an extraordinary con. You seem to be hinting that it's the latter but it would be insane - really, insane - to believe that without any supporting evidence.

I think you might be misinterpreting what I am saying. I am saying that AGW does not lend itself to the scientific method. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but it does mean it should not be cloaked in the veil of science to offer it legitimacy. Scientific integrity demands that you recognize that. Matching against previous data doesn't help. We need the future data for the scientific method to be valid. We are making a new model here that predicts the result of atmospheric forcing of water vapor after release of carbon dioxide. This never happened anytime in the past, unless you would like me to believe there was a previous industrial civilization on the planet that has somehow escaped our notice. Our civilization has maybe only 50 years of actual data, and as I've said before the time constants involved in atmospheric forcing demand we have several hundred to make a rational decision. It is quite easy to design a computer model that matches in the early period and predicts wildly incorrect results in the future.

There are certainly pieces of climatology that are very much science, and do respond well to the scientific method, but the entire AGW theory itself today is not. No more than psychology or economics is actual science. Some people call these pseudo sciences. Richard Feynman would have called them cargo cult sciences if he were still alive today. You should really read his paper. He was a brilliant physicist.

I have said and I will repeat I most certainly am not a climatology expert. If I was, I could never risk my career by making these observations.

If you wish to believe in the more extreme results of AGW I will not say you are wrong, but I will not agree with you either. I suspect the more mild results are likely, and it seems to me that the extreme predictions are somewhat less credible. That is human nature, not a con job. Since the field itself self selects for only positive results, it is expected that the magnitude of these responses should grow over time. Earlier predictions should have more credibility.

So understand I never implied AGW was a con. You said that. I implied that what is happening in AGW is human nature within any profession, and we need to take that into account. My own guess is about 30% of what we hear on AGW is credible, and most of that I think will turn out to be the earlier studies where consensus was not yet dramatically biasing the results.

However, I am not surprised to receive a response like this. As I said, I am nobody's friend when it comes to AGW. The true believers put words in my mouth saying I believe it is a massive con job, and the denialists accuse me of drinking the kool aid and not understanding it really is all a con job.

Real scientific conviction very lonely.

The only thing which could be questioned is the causal link. Well, if CO2 isn't causing the world to warm we need to find (i) what is and (ii) what mechanism is suppressing the forcing effect of CO2? As far as I know, there isn't an answer to this.

If you are an honest educated layman you also have to admit that the climatology field self selects to inhibit any mechanisms that do not support AGW, and as the political movement heats up, it will further self select to inhibit any mechanisms that do not support the more extreme examples. That is not a con job. It is the reality of the profession. There are many possible things that could be causing it, but they will not receive funding.

[Gerontion]

Why do you consider that this is a problem and who are you to take such a patronising stance and dimiss my post as rubbish? What qualifies you to have a more informed opinion than me or anyone else. Where do we all get our knowledge from and based on that form an opinion on a subject?

Because the existence of the ozone hole is a matter of fact, not of opinion. To state that it's "a load of poppycock" is just rubbish. If you don't believe me, do some research for yourself.

There are other schools of thought other than your own on the existence of the ozone layer

Really? Schools of thought which state that there isn't a hole? Could you provide some support for that?

---

I did have a quick scan of the Feynman link. I didn't see anything which would lead me to think he would describe climate science as a cargo cult.

Regarding modelling, does it provide perfect knowledge? No. Does it provide sufficient knowledge? Yes. I don't understand how the fact that we don't have an experimental earth into which we can pump gigatons of CO2 and then see what happens several hundred years later leads to the conclusion that we can make no useful or reasonable predictions about the future. If we wind back a model to 1800 and it correctly forecasts the weather in 2000 then that's a fairly good reason for believing that it's predictions for the future are worth attending to. As for climate records, those for England go back several centuries and proxies go back thousands of years; paleo-climatology is well established field.

I suspect the more mild results are likely, and it seems to me that the extreme predictions are somewhat less credible.

I have to go on what others say in this. I read serious science journalism but not the journals - which I don't have the background to understand - and it's clear that almost every bit of research points to the situation being considerably worse than the 2007 IPCC report stated. Most people talk about a range of possibilities. I don't have preset opinions on this; I listen to what others say.

That is human nature, not a con job. Since the field itself self selects for only positive results, it is expected that the magnitude of these responses should grow over time. Earlier predictions should have more credibility.

No. In a young science especially, predictions will improve with time. Astrophysics wasn't better 50 years ago. And your statement that "the field itself self selects for only positive results" can - without something to support it - be totally discounted.

So understand I never implied AGW was a con. You said that. I implied that what is happening in AGW is human nature within any profession, and we need to take that into account. My own guess is about 30% of what we hear on AGW is credible, and most of that I think will turn out to be the earlier studies where consensus was not yet dramatically biasing the results.

Well, it has to be either a con or a mistake. If it's not a con then you're saying that 70% of the scientists or all the scientists 70% of the time - or some combination of these - are mistaken. You'd need pretty strong evidence for this. I can't see any.

There are many possible things that could be causing it, but they will not receive funding.

Again, that's certainly a possibility but in the absence of any evidence to support the assertion it would be a little odd - and very unscientific - to believe that.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gerontion

[pjclark1]

The most funny theory i heard so far is that RICE cultivation is awfully bad for the environment

I am not aware of any such theory, but global warming does threaten rice production, which would lead to mass starvation.

Increased CO2 levels significantly increase the crop yield of rice and any other farmed produce. Please sort the fact out before posting rubbish. Unless you can actually back up the claim that rice production will be reduced.

Crop yield depends on

1) sunlight

2) nutrient

3) CO2

This is a fairly basic science, increasing each naturally occuring factor by up to 40% will produce a significantly better yield. You can even demonstrate this effect yourself using a poly bag over your experimental crop.

[Gerontion]

Heat stress and lack of water - both of which are consequences of climate change - are likely to adversely affect crops. It's true that Co2 fertilization may boost production but significant rises in CO2 are likely to lead to serious disruption to rainfall and run-off from glaciers - which is happening already - which will put major stresses on food production.

[Tanaka]

Well, if CO2 isn't causing the world to warm we need to find (i) what is and (ii) what mechanism is suppressing the forcing effect of CO2? As far as I know, there isn't an answer to this.

So what you are saying is, that if you do not have the answer, then there is no question! I am really relieved to having had the good fortune to be enlightened by your wisdom. I wonder why everyone cannot see as clearly as yourself.

[RickBradford]

^^

It's because Gerontion denies you the right to disagree with him, as he says:

Go ahead and believe it's all a mistake or it's all a con but if you do, you're making a wildly unreasonable choice and you rule yourself out of all further adult conversation.

Standard extremist position. Disagree with me and you must be a child, a fool, or a criminal.

[Gerontion]

You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with many thousands of people who have far more expertise than you do and you're doing this without any significant evidence or justification. Really, read my post. It's not hard to understand. And, it's definitely not an extremist position, at least amongst those who study this stuff for a living.

So what you are saying is, that if you do not have the answer, then there is no question! I am really relieved to having had the good fortune to be enlightened by your wisdom. I wonder why everyone cannot see as clearly as yourself.

Jesus wept. No. I'm saying that we have a reason to believe that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing climate change and no good reason not to think this. If CO2 isn't causing climate change there has to be a mechanism causing this. There isn't one so in addition to our reasons for, we don't have reasons against ACC. Now, obviously that's a provisional position because, like any scientific theory, it's open to revision at any time but as things currently stand our best understanding of why the world is getting hotter is because we're taking lots of carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air and the long-term consequences of this will be bad.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gerontion

[xylophone]

And another interesting graph below shows that the world has been a much warmer place than it is now......

To be precise, there will almost always be either "global warming" or "global cooling". On a geological timescale, you can see that the planet is dynamic, and I think one could argue only in a short-term 'non changing state' at the turns between warming/cooling.

I mention this because I think it's an important point. I get the impression that many think we should "stop global warming". The Earth is not a static thing. If it wants to warm, it will warm. We just need to live with that.

SEE GRAPH ON Philnz POST

We are at the far right at the bottom.

Note the far higher level of CO2 during the first ice age shown on the left.

Personally, I hate seeing a tree chopped down. I am pro caring for our planet. I like to see lots of 'nature'.

I am anti pollution. I am in favour of minimising that.

CO2 is a natural and very important gas. Without it we would all die. There is only 0.036% by volume in the atmosphere. That is actually close to the lowest level on a geological timescale.

If anything I would be more worried about there not being enough.

[mojaco]

Having a PhD in physics I can appreciate the exponential uncertainty in predictive models as variables are added. So I have no "faith" on the ability of such a multivariable climate model to predict the future climate. However things ARE clearly warming for whatever reason. My own assessment is that megafunds will be spent on an ethereal solution rather than the major historical causes of destructions of EVERY civilation, i.e., wars brought about by usually just a single person of power. Those funds would be better used to help other regions of the world move to creation of EU type unions of cooperation to minimize the likelyhood of continuing future destructions of lives, infastructures, civilizations. Small example - Zimbabwe. We destroy our own civilizations much more effectively than the global warming will. "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing", and the "main thing" this current century is NOT a global warming issue.

IMOFWIW

[Gerontion]

^^ Oh yeah, cheers. I'll forward that on to Rajendra Pachauri. I don't think anyone's noticed any of that before. In light of this shocking revelation, they'll probably want to close down the Copenhagen talks and fuc_k off down the pub instead. Whilst you're at it, perhaps we could have your opinions on the LHC. Any interesting recordings from cloud chambers knocking around on your hard drive? Maybe you could save CERN a lot of hard work, too.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gerontion

[mojaco]

^^ Oh yeah, cheers. I'll forward that on to Rajendra Pachauri. I don't think anyone's noticed any of that before. In light of this shocking revelation, they'll probably want to close down the Copenhagen talks and fuc_k off down the pub instead. Whilst you're at it, perhaps we could have your opinions on the LHC. Any interesting recordings from cloud chambers knocking around on your hard drive? Maybe you could save CERN a lot of hard work, too.

Hopefully the folks at Cooenhagen are using a reasoned approach in their discussions to come to a conclusion instead of the type of invective you are spewing forth at my comment. You are not helping the GW disussion with you small-minded attitude. Bye my friend.

[Ulysses G.]

You are not helping the GW discussion with your small-minded attitude.

Small-minded indeed.

[Gerontion]

Hopefully the folks at Cooenhagen are using a reasoned approach in their discussions to come to a conclusion instead of the type of invective you are spewing forth at my comment. You are not helping the GW disussion with you small-minded attitude. Bye my friend.

Sorry, it wasn't a response to your post. This ^^ means that it was directed at the post above yours. Somehow - and despite denialists' weird beliefs to the contrary - I doubt anyone working in this area is unaware of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or of the historical variability in the climate.

[RickBradford]

on CO² and climate variability

[Gerontion]

I saw the title - Mockton isn't a scientist and has no expertise in this field. In fact, he has no scientific training whatsoever. Did you know that he claims to be a Nobel Laureate? He wrote a letter to the IPCC (they didn't ask him to, he just wrote them a letter) so he now claims that he's an IPCC reviewer and so shares in their Nobel prize. He made himself a little fake gold prize pin to celebrate. He also claims to be an HIV expert and is a self-admitted liar. On scientific matters, some decide to listen to a swivel-eyed loon; I decide to listen to scientists.

[pjclark1]

You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with many thousands of people who have far more expertise than you do and you're doing this without any significant evidence or justification. Really, read my post. It's not hard to understand. And, it's definitely not an extremist position, at least amongst those who study this stuff for a living.

Of course the only way you can 'study this stuff for a living' is if you toe the party line. There are no research grants to explore the possibility that AGW is false, and even 'going it alone' will result in severe damage to any scientific reputation.

Interesting to see those of us with degrees are now split 50/50

[Gerontion]

There are no research grants to explore the possibility that AGW is false, and even 'going it alone' will result in severe damage to any scientific reputation.

It's getting boring repeating this but, as I've already said, in the absence of any evidence, there's no reason to believe that's true; to claim that there's systematic bias in the science, you'd need some pretty solid proof. It's perverse in the extreme to, on the one hand, claim to respect science and, on the other, believe propositions for which no evidence is offered. Besides, two of the poster boys for denialism hold academic posts: Singer at Virginia and Lindzen at MIT.

Interesting to see those of us with degrees are now split 50/50

I never realised so many professional climate scientists were members of Thaivisa. I wonder why they don't contribute their extensive knowledge to this thread.

[jombom]

Interesting to see those of us with degrees are now split 50/50

I never realised so many professional climate scientists were members of Thaivisa. I wonder why they don't contribute their extensive knowledge to this thread.

4 Climate scientists have voted No, and 0 have voted Yes ------ kinda points to something.

The original premise by Jingting at the beginning is also incorrect. Bangkok's problems are 90% caused by subsidence and not global warming.

But subsidence is not emotive enough, so better to ignore it ---- maybe it will go away. LOL.

[Gerontion]

4 Climate scientists have voted No, and 0 have voted Yes ------ kinda points to something.

That Thaivisa members lie about their qualifications, perhaps?