Shermer flips GW stance

[RandFan]

I don't think the issue of whether there have been higher temperatures than there are now is a new idea to anybody.

Do you mean "not new" or not controversial? or am I making an unnecessary distinction.

The arguments for AGW are of two types, IMHO.
1. theoretical analysis based on the theoretical effect of green house gases and/or other human caused effects on the climate.
2. empirical arguments based on the idea that something unusual is happening right now and the most likely cause is somethat humans are doing.

Under item 2 is the argument that earth is warming faster now than in the past and this warming corresponds roughly with the rise in CO2 and other human produced gases. The sight you linked to seems to support that idea.

(emphasis mine) Thank you, this is something that I can get my teeth around. Yes, such unprecedented speed would be good evidence and is beside the specific argument Capel and I were having which was unprecedented temperature. Or at least he was not communicating the fact that the speed of the increase was significant and unprecedented.

And so does the study referred to in this article:
http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=197149

Many other observed effects seem to be consistent with an unusually quick change in the earth's climate including the melting of the tropical glaciers and the melting of perma frost.

Now, I am thinking that RandFan will reasonably want to know how fast the tropical glaciers are receding compared to how fast they have reseded in the past. I don't know but I have read several estimates that they will be gone within a 150 years and they have existed for thousands of years previously. Perhaps with a little digging around I could find a site with data on the rate that tropical glaciers are receding and how that compares with the fastest rates that they have receded at in the past.

Let me go through the trouble of stating one more time that I'm not strongly opposed to AGW and I certainly lack the credentials and where with all to counter the scientists. My point was to counter an argument by Capel. I suspect to a large extent we were not even communicating so I have simply written off the whole affair.

I would love any data you have. There is no hurry for it. I'll monitor this thread when you have the time.

Again my thanks,

RandFan

P.S. I think I may have accidentally changed a word or two in your quote thinking they were my words. I beg your forgiveness. I'm too lazy to go back and figure out what the hell the changes where. I think the changes incidental and I assure you they were innocent.

 

[davefoc]

Do you mean "not new" or not controversial? or am I making an unnecessary distinction.

Sorry, my sentence was a little ambiguous. The idea that I was trying to get across was that people who argue that AGW is real in these threads are usually very well aware that in the long ago past the climate has been very different than it is today. So referencing graphs that indicate this is not providing information to the discussion that anybody in the discussion is not aware of.

Let me go through the trouble of stating one more time that I'm not strongly opposed to AGW and I certainly lack the credentials and where with all to counter the scientists.

This is roughly my view although I might be a little more of a believer than you are. I will say that some of Diamond;s arguments against AGW have struck me as informed at least enough to make me realize I couldn't counter them without greater knowledge (that is not to say that I didn't find some of his arguments lacking objectivity).

I have an easier time with the empirical case for global warming than the analytical case. The analytical case relies a great deal on one's faith in the integrity of the analysts since the analysis is much too complicated for the average non-specialist to absorb.

I think what you were asking for was an organized, quantitative description of the empirical case for AGW. Maybe something like a collection of graphs showing the various observed effects attributed to AGW relative to time. Say for instance, a graph showing the estimated volume of tropical glaciers over the last 10,000 years. That kind of thing would really give strength to the empirical case. One could just look at the graphs and see immediately how the particular effect has varied over time and with the rise of CO2.

My guess, after doing quite a bit of disorganized reading on the subject is that there would be an obvious strong correlation with the rise of CO2, the recession of the permafrost, the reduction in the size of the average artic ice sheet and the reduction in the extent of the permafrost.

 

[davefoc]

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since Earth has run such a fever.
The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.
The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, my sentence was a little ambiguous. The idea that I was trying to get across was that people who argue that AGW is real in these threads are usually very well aware that in the long ago past the climate has been very different than it is today. So referencing graphs that indicate this is not providing information to the discussion that anybody in the discussion is not aware of.

This is roughly my view although I might be a little more of a believer than you are. I will say that some of Diamond;s arguments against AGW have struck me as informed at least enough to make me realize I couldn't counter them without greater knowledge (that is not to say that I didn't find some of his arguments lacking objectivity).

I have an easier time with the empirical case for global warming than the analytical case. The analytical case relies a great deal on one's faith in the integrity of the analysts since the analysis is much too complicated for the average non-specialist to absorb.

I think what you were asking for was an organized, quantitative description of the empirical case for AGW. Maybe something like a collection of graphs showing the various observed effects attributed to AGW relative to time. Say for instance, a graph showing the estimated volume of tropical glaciers over the last 10,000 years. That kind of thing would really give strength to the empirical case. One could just look at the graphs and see immediately how the particular effect has varied over time and with the rise of CO2.

My guess, after doing quite a bit of disorganized reading on the subject is that there would be an obvious strong correlation with the rise of CO2, the recession of the permafrost, the reduction in the size of the average artic ice sheet and the reduction in the extent of the permafrost.

A light shines. Yes, thank you. Every once in awhile someone gets me.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ok, what I THINK is that at the end of some previous glaciations, temperatures have been higher than now. It APPEARS TO ME, from the graph, that CO2 levels increase AFTER temperatures begin to increase at the end of glaciations, and decrease AFTER temperatures decrease during glaciations. I THINK that the last glaciation APPEARS longer and milder than previous ones.

Nobody contends that ice-ages are driven by CO2 variations. The commonly accepted theory is that they are a result of regular variations in the planet's orbit, axial tilt and axial orientation (collectively known as the Milankovich Cycle). The increase in CO2 following glacial retreat is a result, not a cause, of the retreat. It amplifies the warming, and is thus a positive feedback, just as reduced albedo is.

The cycles that make up the Milankovich Cycle are independent, so each inter-glacial will experience its own combination of phases. When they are all in warm phases the interglacial will be warmer and longer than one where some are in cool phases.

Like that matters.

It's certainly irrelevant when considering the current climate event.

Why do you ask, anyway? You already obliquely stated that you have your mind made up and are unlikely to change it.

The evidence of AGW as the cause of the current climate event is convincing, and I'm convinced by it. I'm open to being unconvinced if, for instance, a credible natural influence is put forward, or the planet enters a cooling phase. When you introduce some data with a "Look at that" flourish I'm interested in knowing what I'm meant to be looking at.

I was well aware of the data you've introduced before I was convinced of AGW. It's not relevant.

 

[articulett]

RandFan, where do you draw the line between your consept of sceptisicm and solepsism? We cannot, after all, know anything, not even that an objective reality exists.

Solipsism is, of course, utterly barren and pointless. When scepticism becomes "anything could be true", how does it differ from credulity?

I've never tried to be the best sceptic, I've always tried to be right. I have always been one for saying "told you so". AGW has been a sure-fire winner for years. I hate to be wrong, and the unidentified natural forcing might move into a cooling phase which would not only help to identify it but would also prove me wrong. I'm not losing sleep over the prospect.

I would add--when the scientific community across the planet are in such unanimous agreement--such is the case in evolution and DNA--and those who say otherwise are only those who have a strong interest in protecting their own "truth" --then it becomes immoral to argue for the spread of ignorance over the factual truth. (But that's just me, of course.)

 

[RandFan]

I would add--when the scientific community across the planet are in such unanimous agreement--such is the case in evolution and DNA--and those who say otherwise are only those who have a strong interest in protecting their own "truth" --then it becomes immoral to argue for the spread of ignorance over the factual truth. (But that's just me, of course.)

I don't think that the comparison to evolution is quite analogous. Do I think a consensus in the scientific community is significant? Yes, I do. Can the consensus be wrong? Of course, see Red Shift, see solar wind. Both are examples of the minority being correct. Both represent a paradigm shift in the scientific community.

The likelihood of a paradigm shift for evolution is as close to zero as I think one can come. All of the evidence points to evolution. The theory of evolution has unified many disciplines and has been used to accurately make many predictions. Arguing against evolution sans any scientific theory or evidence is silly and stupid.

On the other hand one can reasonably question the science behind AGW on a scientific basis. The problem is that the more scientists look at AGW and the more the skeptics question it the stronger it seems to get. I think this is the strength of science.

Questioning held beliefs is not wrong. And painting those who have questioned the rational of AGW as heretics and loons and the equivalent of Creationist apologists is counter to what science is. We should not fear questioning. We should not fear criticism. The logic and the evidence should speak for itself. In the and the truth will out.

Comparing AGW to evolution might make good rhetoric but it fails IMO.

 

[articulett]

Few things..

1.Global dimming is said to mask global warming. Meaning that the dimming of the sun through our atmosphere is holding back the true power of global warming.


2.I'd like to see these so called "Environmental skeptics" say global warming is still hypothetical once this next hurricane season is over and a few more "katrinas" hit the east coast of the united states.

Maybe Jeb this time

--but what about Randi and JREF? We know what Pat Robertson will be saying about that.

 

[articulett]

I don't think that the comparison to evolution is quite analogous. Do I think a consensus in the scientific community is significant? Yes, I do.
Comparing AGW to evolution might make good rhetoric but it fails IMO.

It isn't perfect, I will give you that--
But what the public thinks is uncertain vs. what science takes as the obvious.

People think there is debate about both in the scientific community (peer reviewed science articles)--there is not--not fore either of them anymore...
unless I've missed some source you have access too--

Understanding eis the key to unlocking the religious meme-plex that parents pass on to the kids...

Understanding AGW is the key for saving lives. I think Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" will allow you to see the obvious--no matter what your political leanings are. It's--well... DIRE.