For all you global warming deniers

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?denial

As the other climate change believer on this board, let me predict a few responses... liberal bias from Canada (a social country). Do you really think anyone will watch this before they jump all over you?

In other news, thanks for the link.  I've been having a similar debate with my father-in-law.  Maybe I can get him to watch this.

Brian

so believing in it is one thing, but believing it will have any catastrophic effects (beyond the normal catastrophes we always
have!) is another story.

the media loves stuff like this (remember the year 2000 bug?)

so I just have a hard time getting all worked up. or really caring much at all.

J

John,
I am sure there were a lot of DInosaurs who felt the same way about that meteor, gazelles noticing those grasses moving counter to the wind from stalkign lions, or plumes of smoke from Vesuvious. The difference is caring might make a difference in your survival. Indifference will cast you fate to the winds. Your choice.

I try to stay out of this stuff, but....
Having spent a large part of my Masters degree program studying global warming/climate change, and keeping an eye on it currently, here's what I know.
I will have children.  They will live longer than me.  My grandchildren will live longer than me.  What I do today will affect them.

The Science:  Of more than 1,000 PEER REVIEWED journal submissions, NONE discredited that the increase in carbon dioxide and methane (from human sources) in the atmosphere WILL increase global temperatures.  Articles published in the Fresno Bee, Sacramento editorial, and Cosmopolitan magazine are not peer reviewed.  If you wanted to publish that eating slugs made you smarter, you could publish in any of those.  If you wanted to publish that in Science or Nature, you would have to show duplicability and quality control that eating slugs did indeed make you smarter.
According to scientists at the USGS, sea level is already rising.  It seems small, but rising sea level of about an inch a year could have dramatic impacts.  An increased MSL of 50 cm would inundate roughly 500 square kilometers of the north bay area primarily the area between Novato, Sonoma and Vallejo.  It would also threaten and probably break most of the levees in the delta, turning most of it into a big lake.  Some of this could be mitigated by levee repair work, but I doubt it would all be saved.  That is a best case scenario for the next 30 years.

The argument that climate change has happened before is valid-- it has.  Last time North America's climate shifted drastically (by about 2 degrees F) many native American tribes disappeared or moved to more habitable lands.  This time, where are we going to go?

Scientists with the CA DWR are predicting that the flood frequency will more than double in the near future.  It is anticipated that the Sierra will hold less water as long term snowpack, to the point that what had been a 100-year frequency flood on most rivers will happen on a 10-year frequency.

If that isn't problematic enough, consider that a scientist from the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that most of the US will see average summertime temperatures climb by as much as 18F over the next 50 to 100 years.  In fact, the current models show Sacramento having more days over 100 per summer than Fresno OR Bakersfield (this year Fresno had 31).

This information was presented in concert with a large amount of other climate and ecosystem data at the CALFED conference in Sacramento last October (10/25/06).

It doesn't take much to start making your life less stressful on the planet, but it could mean the difference for our children and theirs.  Personally, I would like my grandkids to know what salmon and trout are, not to mention snow...

Jim

I figure those kids of tomorrow will be smart enough to figure something out.

if life is too easy, it get's boring and people become meth heads.

J

The Science:  Of more than 1,000 PEER REVIEWED journal submissions, NONE discredited that the increase in carbon dioxide and methane (from human sources) in the atmosphere WILL increase global temperatures.

 

I assume you refer to Oreskes, 2004? If so, she cites 928 papers, so you only get partial credit for this statement. It's like saying 9=10 on a math test.  Now, please cite references that refute Peisers work that shows there are only 13 articles in Oreskes subset of the ISI database that support anthropogenic global warming, and that the rest are neutral or unconcerned with AGW.  Note also that  Bray and von Storch and the 1997 survey of State Climatologists show no such concensus.

According to scientists at the USGS, sea level is already rising.  It seems small, but rising sea level of about an inch a year could have dramatic impacts.  An increased MSL of 50 cm would inundate roughly 500 square kilometers of the north bay area primarily the area between Novato, Sonoma and Vallejo.  It would also threaten and probably break most of the levees in the delta, turning most of it into a big lake.  Some of this could be mitigated by levee repair work, but I doubt it would all be saved.  That is a best case scenario for the next 30 years

IPCC TAR predictions of increase in GASL is 90-880 mm from 1990 to 2100. Current measured increase in GASL is about 1.5 mm/year, with no sign of acceleration. Even if you take the IPCC TAR central value of 480 mm over 110 years, you get less than 30% of the rate of your stated increase. So, who do we believe? The USGS, or the oft quoted IPCC?

Now, an additional 500 km^2 of Bay is bad, just how exactly? I mean for wildlife that is, not for humans.  Ditto for thousands of additional km ^2 of wetlands in the Central Valley. And that assumes that humans don't manage to fix levees, which I sincerely doubt, as humans do tend to get things done when we are being reactionary.

The argument that climate change has happened before is valid-- it has.  Last time North America's climate shifted drastically (by about 2 degrees F) many native American tribes disappeared or moved to more habitable lands.  This time, where are we going to go?

If temps increase by the IPCC TAR central value of 4.3 C by 2100, I imagine that folks aren't going anywhere all of a sudden. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but most of humanity isn't doing the hunter-gatherer thing any more. You or I wouldn't even notice a 1.4 C increase in temperature, which is at the low end of the IPCC TAR.

Scientists with the CA DWR are predicting that the flood frequency will more than double in the near future.  It is anticipated that the Sierra will hold less water as long term snowpack, to the point that what had been a 100-year frequency flood on most rivers will happen on a 10-year frequency.

I guess I better not build in the 100 year flood plain then. Or if I do, I better adopt something along the lines of the Dutch experiments in floating housing:   http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/floating-cities-the-dutch-might-have-the-answer-for-global-warming  Changes would need to be made in how agriculture is done in the Valley. But, since a lot of the Valley relies on flooding fields, this may be a draw. Or again, levee technology might just be improved.  Time will tell.

If that isn't problematic enough, consider that a scientist from the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that most of the US will see average summertime temperatures climb by as much as 18F over the next 50 to 100 years.  In fact, the current models show Sacramento having more days over 100 per summer than Fresno OR Bakersfield (this year Fresno had 31).

That value is approximately triple the worst case scenario numbers of the IPCC TAR, which predict up to 5.8 C mean increase in Global temperatures by 2100, vs your 10 C in 50 years. Can you cite the resources that provide the basis for this extraordinary prediction?  Better yet, has this scientist's prediction passed peer review? And did anyone in the audience question this number, or was it just silently accepted as gospel?


Regards,
Scott

As the other climate change believer on this board, let me predict a few responses... liberal bias from Canada (a social country). Do you really think anyone will watch this before they jump all over you?

In other news, thanks for the link.  I've been having a similar debate with my father-in-law.  Maybe I can get him to watch this.

Brian

I only watched the first 10 minutes of the 40 or so. And what was I given? Not actual science, but instead I found out that denialists are using focus groups to influence public opinion. <cue Claude Rains voice> I'm shocked, shocked to find out that people with eco-political agendas are using all the tools at their disposal!

But seriously, is there some beef in here later on? I'm a former Anthropogenic Global Warming true believer that's become more and more skeptical that scientists really know what's going on. And almost categorically reject anything said regarding Global Warming you hear on TV. And yes, that includes right wing media as well. I'm also more and more convinced that Big Science is happy to live off of the AGW gravy train, and does squelch contrary views.

Regards,
Scott

Thanks for the awesome the tip on slugs!!! I could use a few extra points...besides molluscs are generally tasty!

(thats me pretending to be the public, missing everything while taking the one meanigless part of the entire discussion  out of context and freely adopting it)

I guess this would be a good place for this.

Yer killin' me Thornley.  I too am SHOCKED that people with agendas attempt to modify public opinion.



MolBasser

I assume you refer to Oreskes, 2004? If so, she cites 928 papers, so you only get partial credit for this statement. It's like saying 9=10 on a math test.  Now, please cite references that refute Peisers work that shows there are only 13 articles in Oreskes subset of the ISI database that support anthropogenic global warming, and that the rest are neutral or unconcerned with AGW.

I'm not going to argue that over 1000 is the same as 928. Of course, the original survey was for papers published between 1993 and 2003.  If some one was to add journal articles from the past few years of it might well be over 1000 by now.

I will however address Peiser's response to Oreske.   Oreskes' paper was looking at the number of papers that refute global warming, which was 0 in her search results.  She never mentions the number that fully support anthropogenic global warming, so it's hard to judge whether 13 is a good number or not.

Peiser's work is a bit deceptive, in many ways he's comparing apples to oranges.  He didn't run the same search that Oreskes did.   Oreskes did the search on "Global Climate Change" between 1993 and 2003 within the "Science" index of the database and restricted her results to "Articles".  Peiser's search on the other hand was also for "Global Climate Change" but included non articles such as editorials and opinion pieces from the "Science" as well as the "Social Science" and "Art and humanities" idexes.

I reran Oreskes query and got 929 articles (I'm not sure what the extra is, maybe a late addition by ISI).  I also reran Peiser's query and got the 1247 he claims so I'm pretty sure of the differences between the two methods.  By the way, the current number of papers returned by the Oreskes query but for the last 10 years (i.e. between 1996 and 2006) is 1,213.  I don't have the time to evaluate where they stand on the issue, but it would be interesting to see if things have changed.

There is a website which has posted the 34(33) abstracts that Peiser claims "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years'"
http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

About this list of 33... of the few that actually seem to cast a doubt, non of them show up under Oreskes' original query.  In fact they only show up if you include non-articles as well as abstracts from the "social sciences" and "the arts and humanities".  Many of these are opinion pieces from non-science sources.

The journal that published Oreske's survey (Science) refused to publish Peiser's original response presumably becuase of some of these decrepancies. Later, Peiser did manage to respond to Oreske in Science in May of 2005.  He never mentions the 34 references in that response, instead he states "In the discussion motivated by Oreskes' Essay, I have seen one claim made that there are more than 11,000 articles on 'climate change' in the ISI database and suggestions that about 10% somehow contradict the IPCC consensus position."  This is pretty much hearsay.

At any rate, as Oreske states in her response to Peiser in the same issue of Science the point of the original Oreske essay was that
"the existing scientific dissent has been greatly exaggerated and confirming that the statements and reports of leading scientific organizations--including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences--accurately reflect the evidence presented in the scientific literature"

Brian

Brian, Red Herrings are the first to get bit, aren't they

I still haven't found a refutation of the claim that only 13 of Oreske's 928 papers explicitly endorse AGW. I have to think it's out there.

I would also argue that both Oreske and Peiser are deceptive. Peiser because of his early claim of  34 papers that refute AGW. Oreske because (if Peiser is accurate on this one point) only about 1% of papers from a superset of her search explicitly endorse the consensus view of AGW. Personally, my conclusion would have been that there is a weak (at the time of her publication) concensus for AGW. And yet, what do you hear in the soundbites or OP EDs? "Unanimity among almost 1000 climatologists that AGW is real!" or "Oreske refuted!"

I'm also having trouble finding an abstract of an article that Peiser keeps referring to. It was supposedly published in late 2004 or early 2005, by six researchers from the Russian Acadamy of Science and the Israeli Space Agency and deals with changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity.  I've found the one from Scarfetta and West in 2005.

Regards,
Scott

I can't imagine how you could possibly model the effects of man-made co2 on such a complex system as climate. Extrapolating the effects and permutations of natural perturbations in an infinite number of variables with any accuracy seems absurd. I mean come on, half the time they can’t even forecast the weather in California reliably.

One thing is irrefutable though, the ice is melting everywhere. Glaciers that have been stable through recorded history are disappearing at an alarming rate and the trend has been nothing short of dramatic in our lifetime. I don’t know if co2 is the culprit or if this is simply a natural cycle but in cases like these I tend to prefer to err on the side of caution. After all, this is the only place we have.

Sorry, folks, but I think the ultimately self-righteous and greedy redneck crowd will support this one full-term - meaning I feel we'll have to get all the way to the end before they'll admit that it's true.  Luckily the rest of us are numerous, although less loud and obnoxious, and I do feel there's a chance we'll elect someone with enough moral fortitude to push a sane agenda.  We might even elect Gore again!  The sad thing is that if we stop the trends and actually prevent global catastrophe the Good Ol' Boys will still be sitting around claiming it was never real in the first place!