• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Shermer flips GW stance

Reb

Scholar
R
Joined
Apr 3, 2002
Messages
112
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

I don't know who to believe anymore. I started off believing there was a
consensus among the scientific community that GW was related to human
activity, with the only dissenting voices coming from those in the
pockets of the oil companies. I was convinced otherwise, largely by reading the debates in these forums as well as reading things written or referred to by Shermer (my stance going from, "of course we are causing it" to, "ok, maybe we aren't, and maybe there is nothing we can do about it")

I wish he had cited the specific evidence that lead to his pardigm shift,
but he is convincing nonetheless, given that he does explain the inputs that
lead to it.

I believe I am in the same boat that other laymen find themselves in: not
wanting to believe something merely because it's stated by somebody in
authority, but at the same time, not having the background, or the time to
acquire that background, to properly evaluate the evidence ourselves. At
some point one has to accept the conclusions reached by those who do have
the background.

So, I guess I have two choices:
1. Read the books cited by Shermer, and find transcripts of of the
conferences he attended, neglecting work and other interests to learn how to evaluate the evidence he was confronted with
2. Resolve to read the books at some later time, accepting that I would
reach the same conclusions that Shermer reached if I did take the time to
acquire the background needed to properly evaluate them

Given that I really don't want to neglect the things that truly interest me,
and given the respect that Shermer has engendered in me in the past, I'm
inclined to go with option 2.

Is there an option I am not seeing?
 
I can't really advise you of any other options, as I have none.

My own take on the issue was pretty much in line with Shermer's - i.e. that much of what was publicly said about the issue was alarmist and/or exaggerated - but I think I flipped a little before he did. Many years ago I read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the book widely credited with starting environmental awareness. I also read Lomberg's Skeptical Environmentalist, one of the driest books I've ever encountered, plus a lot of the stuff available on the 'Net. The book that I think did the most towards bringing about my reversal probably was Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, mainly because he cites such a diverse array of sources. It may of course have been a case of the last straw vs. the camel's back, but the book is probably a better starting point than most.

'Luthon64
 
I think there is an overall issue of importance here as well; that skeptics, critical thinkers, scientists do change stances on something. This is an excellent example to put forth to those that claim skeptics are dogmatic or unyielding in their beliefs and opinions.

The evidence does truly lead us to the conclusion and not the other way around.
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
I can't really advise you of any other options, as I have none.

My own take on the issue was pretty much in line with Shermer's - i.e. that much of what was publicly said about the issue was alarmist and/or exaggerated - but I think I flipped a little before he did. Many years ago I read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the book widely credited with starting environmental awareness.

'Luthon64
Click to expand...
This book really convinced you? I was under the perhaps incorrect impression that the book and its conclusions had been widely discredited.
 
What is indisputable is that there has been a warming trend in recent years. There's a lot of disagreement as to what's causing it. I guess some could argue that the fact that it coincides with all this human industrial is just a coincidence.

My impression is that scientists aren't certain and don't totally understand how these environmental trends work, but it seems likely that human beings have soomething to do with it. That makes sense to me. You'd think all this crap we're putting into the air would have some effect on things.
 
What is also indisputable is that there has been a warming trend over the last 10,000 years, with occasional reversals. The biggest reversal of the trend was the "Little Ice Age"from ~1400 to 1850. Note that 1850 is pretty much the start of the Industrial Revolution.
It's tempting to suppose the increased burning of fossil fuel after 1850 actually caused the end of the LIA, but it's equally plausible that the two events are not connected at all. Possibly , just as the world reverted to a warming phase, we also started burning more coal.

The truth is that we do not know for sure.

Nor does it really matter. Hydrocarbon fuels are a limited resource. So are forests. If we go on burning and destroying them, we will ultimately regret it.
 
Soapy Sam said:
What is also indisputable is that there has been a warming trend over the last 10,000 years, with occasional reversals.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm disputing it. Do you have a source for this?

The globe has warmed by 0.6 C over the past century. Are you suggesting that this is typical over the past 10,000 years?

How does the Holocene Climatic Optimum fit in with what you are saying?
 
Soapy Sam said:
What is also indisputable is that there has been a warming trend over the last 10,000 years, with occasional reversals. The biggest reversal of the trend was the "Little Ice Age"from ~1400 to 1850. Note that 1850 is pretty much the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...
The Industrial Revolution started in the late 18thCE. Coal-mining was already an important industry in Western Europe by 1800. The Little Ice Age was far more dramatic in the North Atlantic than it was on a global scale. Warming over the last century has been global.

It's tempting to suppose the increased burning of fossil fuel after 1850 actually caused the end of the LIA, but it's equally plausible that the two events are not connected at all. Possibly , just as the world reverted to a warming phase, we also started burning more coal.
Click to expand...
A warming phase has a mechanism behind it. It isn't just something that happens. The only proposed mechanism to date is an increased greenouse effect. There is no proposed mechanism to prevent an increased greenhouse effect warming the planet.

The truth is that we do not know for sure.
Click to expand...
Scepticism can degenerate into solipsism. It requires an act of will not to accept the evidence that humans are changing the climate, and changing it radically (on the scale of current human experience).

Nor does it really matter.
Click to expand...
May you live long enough to see that statement come back to haunt you. :)
 
Soapy Sam said:
What is also indisputable is that there has been a warming trend over the last 10,000 years, with occasional reversals. The biggest reversal of the trend was the "Little Ice Age"from ~1400 to 1850. Note that 1850 is pretty much the start of the Industrial Revolution.
It's tempting to suppose the increased burning of fossil fuel after 1850 actually caused the end of the LIA, but it's equally plausible that the two events are not connected at all. Possibly , just as the world reverted to a warming phase, we also started burning more coal.

The truth is that we do not know for sure.
Click to expand...

The world is warming, but there are some masking effects that hide what could be a more serious problem, that is, various factors that are cooling the world. One of the books that Shermer refers to "The Weather Makers", talks about this. "Global Dimming", which has a cooling effect, is just a short term factor. That is, the dimming will stop quite quickly if we don't produce the things that cause it. The warming due to CO2, on the other hand, is a very long term effect. The dimming is not a 'feedback' mechanism that results due to CO2, but another product of our civilisation. Read the book, it is explained in detail.
 
Back in the 70's I doubted that Greenhouse Warming would have any significant effect. I didn't doubt the principle - the physics is sound - but I was a product of the old school, which held that humans should get over themselves and catastrophism should be consigned to the Bible-bashers and cultists. There was very little to go on in those days. Thirty years on - twenty, even - we have the best analogue model of all to go on, and the effect is most definitely significant. Time for humans to stop getting over themselves and realise that humanity is now a force of nature (credit Sir David for that point :) ).
 
a_unique_person said:
The dimming is not a 'feedback' mechanism that results due to CO2, but another product of our civilisation.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and the associated environmental problems are not related either. SO2 was very likely the cause of Global Dimming (masking greenhouse warming) but also the cause of acid rain. Action was finally taken on that problem, against fierce opposition and predictions of economic calamity. Which failed to materialise. What did emerge out of the mist was greenhouse warming.

An example (I posit) of the short-term effect of SO2 cooling can be seen in the Russian winter of 1941-42, and the subsequent cold years into the early 50's. The boycotts of the thirties and the blockade imposed in 1939 meant that Germany looked more to it's own energy resources, including high-sulpher (and thus low-grade) coal. Sulphate plumes got thicker and more widespread. Meanwhile the USSR was industrialising frantically, again using low-grade fuels because they were available. They were both command economies with a well-deserved siege mentality.

Leading to the irony that Barbarossa was defeated by its own creation.
 
CapelDodger said:
(snip)

A warming phase has a mechanism behind it. It isn't just something that happens. The only proposed mechanism to date is an increased greenouse effect. There is no proposed mechanism to prevent an increased greenhouse effect warming the planet.

(snip)
Click to expand...

bolding mine

The bolded statement you made is incorrect. There are other proposed mechanisims.

One mechanism refers to sunspot activity, and another refers to the orbit of the earth around the sun, and another postulates effects of polar ice caps, and another postulates effects of volcanic activity. Here's a brief overview link that mentions other possible mechanisms, but only the one. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=271

There is tons of info out there on a lot more mechanisms for whoever cares to google for it, and cherry pick what they want to believe.

Why would you say something so obviously untrue?
 
Soapy Sam said:
What is also indisputable is that there has been a warming trend over the last 10,000 years, with occasional reversals. The biggest reversal of the trend was the "Little Ice Age"from ~1400 to 1850. Note that 1850 is pretty much the start of the Industrial Revolution.
It's tempting to suppose the increased burning of fossil fuel after 1850 actually caused the end of the LIA, but it's equally plausible that the two events are not connected at all. Possibly , just as the world reverted to a warming phase, we also started burning more coal.

The truth is that we do not know for sure.

Nor does it really matter. Hydrocarbon fuels are a limited resource. So are forests. If we go on burning and destroying them, we will ultimately regret it.
Click to expand...

A lot of this is in line with my own thinking on the matter especially the last sentence.

My guess is that most of the warming the world is experiencing right now is anthropogenic.

If I was in charge I would begin to implement mechanisms for reducing the production of CO2.

But I'm not in charge and I don't think the evidence will ever be both simple enough and complete enough to convince people who have a vested interested in expanding energy consumption that restricting the production of CO2 would be a good idea (although a few oil companines have taken shots at solutions like carbon sequestration ideas).

So like, Soapy Sam suggests, what I think is going to happen is that the problem will be solved in the long term by the gradual reduction in the supply of fossil fuels.

One worst case scenario here is that the CO2/AGW connection is correct and that as the supply of oil gradually declines it is replaced by coal. Coal gets a much higher percentage of its energy by the oxidation of carbon and the resulting production of CO2 then oil does. A significant component of the energy from burning oil comes from the oxydation of hydrogen so less CO2 is produced when oil is burned than when coal is burned to produce the same amount of energy.

So in this scenario as the supply of oil dwindles we go into a mode where the reduction in oil is replaced with coal and the rate of CO2 production is substantially increased. And as this happens the sea levels rise and a massive world wide instability occurrs.

I will be long dead by the time this process is underway but my children might see at least the beginning of it.
 
CapelDodger said:
I was a product of the old school, which held that humans should get over themselves and catastrophism should be consigned to the Bible-bashers and cultists.
Click to expand...
That's Bible-thumpers, CapelDodger. Bashers are a different group altogether.
 
Badger said:
bolding mine

The bolded statement you made is incorrect. There are other proposed mechanisims.

One mechanism refers to sunspot activity, and another refers to the orbit of the earth around the sun, and another postulates effects of polar ice caps, and another postulates effects of volcanic activity. Here's a brief overview link that mentions other possible mechanisms, but only the one. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=271

There is tons of info out there on a lot more mechanisms for whoever cares to google for it, and cherry pick what they want to believe.

Why would you say something so obviously untrue?
Click to expand...

I could lift an elephant slightly if I wedged a toothpick under it. It's also a matter of significance.
 
a_unique_person said:
I could lift an elephant slightly if I wedged a toothpick under it. It's also a matter of significance.
Click to expand...

I find this to be a humourous statement, given that it's posted by you about this topic.

Your irony is not lost on me.
 
a_unique_person said:
The sunspots have been studied a long time, and they don't affect the gobal climate to the extent that rising CO2 and other gases do.
Click to expand...

Sez some scientists. And others say they do. And others say it's volcanos. And others say it's the changing proximity of the earth to the sun. And others say that temperatures rise, CAUSING increase in greenhouse gasses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom