Shermer flips GW stance

[Badger]

How do they explain the rise in temperature, then?

From what I read, the guys who said CO2 levels rise in response to temperature increase were leaning towards the Earth's Orbit mechanism.

(no link, sorry. I didn't keep the article)

 

[Bob Klase]

At least we're not alone. Earth isn't the only planet with global warming.

http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

 

[CFLarsen]

From what I read, the guys who said CO2 levels rise in response to temperature increase were leaning towards the Earth's Orbit mechanism.

...awhat?

The orbit of the Earth makes the temperature rise?

 

[athon]

I've got less than complete confidence in anthropocentric global warming, however personally think the evidence for it is pretty significant. While many of the alarmist warnings do seem rather exaggerative as far as doomsday scenarios go, I think that climate change is something humanity has to deal with sooner or later. Hence I don't think the ramifications of heeding the warnings are a bad thing.

Changing the ways our society works in terms can only benefit in light of a changing environment. Fossil fuels will eventually deplete, and resources cannot be consumed forever. Technology which can cope with environmental change will have to be developed some time in the future, either gradually or immediately. I see no problem with that being addressed now.

Scientifically, I think mapping climate change and attributing it to key factors is important, however will take more than the few decades of focus we've given it. I'm happy to change my mind on the causes, however the effects of this debate are ultimate beneficial.

Athon

 

[a_unique_person]

...awhat?

The orbit of the Earth makes the temperature rise?

There are three factors that do this. Once again, they are already known and understood. They are not behind the current warming. Read "The weather makers". He discusses this.

 

[Badger]

...awhat?

The orbit of the Earth makes the temperature rise?

Ya. Apparently, there's a 28 000 yr cycle during which the earth's average distance from the sun varies from some minimum distance to some maximum distance. Minimum distance... warm. Maximum distance.....cold.

 

[Badger]

There are three factors that do this. Once again, they are already known and understood. They are not behind the current warming. Read "The weather makers". He discusses this.

Known and understood? You're kidding, right?

 

[epepke]

I am of a couple of minds about this.

I'm glad Shermer decided that the preponderance of evidence indicates global warming, which has been evident from the preponderance of evidence for quite some time. It's also nice to see a public demonstration of a skeptic's changing his mind.

However, the final statement is troubling.

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

This does skepticism a great disservice. No, environmental skepticism remains not only tenable but necessary, and the same applies to all sciences. As Richard Feynman wrote "[It] is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature."

I think that Shermer's statement may be an example of a kind of disease that I have noticed in organized skepticism, in which the term is only used for something one doubts beyond a certain threshold. and "skepticism" becomes nearly synonymous with "opposition." This causes many problems, not the least of which is that it validates the criticisms from opponents of skepticism.

 

[Reb]

Badger, et alia.
I see you are posting the same arguments/objections that you or others were posting when I first started following these debates in these forums a few years ago.

Don't you think Shermer was aware of these objections when he reached his new conclusion?

I know as sceptics we all pride ourselves on thinking for ourselves, not allowing others to drive our conclusions, but doesn't Shermer's shift cause the least bit of doubt to arise in your thinking? Why aren't you at least re-examining the evidence, esp. the new evidence that has arisen in the past few years, to see if your conclusions need to be adjusted? Isn't that what sceptics do, rather than retrenching and repeating old arguments?

Reb

 

[CapelDodger]

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?

The link you provide is less than edifying. Vapourish would be a more apt description. Notice how much of it is about climate models and their alleged inadequacies, not mechanisms.

There's evidence that the solar-cycle does influence climate, but it's an 11-year cycle. It does not explain the warming from cycle to cycle, which is what we're seeing. Sunspot activity happens on the sun, it's not a mechanism for affecting climate. The activity may relate to variations in solar radiation, but that's been measured directly since the 80's and the increase just isn't there.

Orbital changes happen over thousands of years, not all of a sudden and unpredictably. It may well explain the ice-ages - the Milankovich Cycle - but there's nothing in there to explain what's going on now.

El Nino has long been with us, volcanoes have always been with us, and there's no evidence of any unusual activity there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ya. Apparently, there's a 28 000 yr cycle during which the earth's average distance from the sun varies from some minimum distance to some maximum distance. Minimum distance... warm. Maximum distance.....cold.

The distance during the Northern summer has the greatest effect. That hasn't changed significantly in the last century.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's Bible-thumpers, CapelDodger. Bashers are a different group altogether.

Which ones are the heretics? Christianity confuses the heck out of me.

 

[CapelDodger]

From what I read, the guys who said CO2 levels rise in response to temperature increase were leaning towards the Earth's Orbit mechanism.

(no link, sorry. I didn't keep the article)

Can you recall the suggested mechanism that causes CO2 levels to rise with temperature?

If the Milankovich cycle is anything to go by, we should be in a cooling phase leading to the next ice-age in a few thousand years or so. That's been the general pattern for a few million years, and nothing much has changed at the solar-system scale recently.

 

[Hindmost]

I was on the fence about global warming until about two years ago. After researching sources of CO2 and finding natural sources much more significant than human sources, I felt it was a bit overhyped. I changed after doing more research.

Recently, global dimming caught my attention...take a look at the following links. The effect of contrails really surprised me. However, more data is likely needed. The pbs show was compeling.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global warming could be a natural cycle of the planet and a result of man-made sources...either way, I feel we are contributing and it would seem to be difficult to stop. To much of our lifestyle is dependent on burning stuff.

glenn

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

 

[Badger]

Badger, et alia.
I see you are posting the same arguments/objections that you or others were posting when I first started following these debates in these forums a few years ago.

Don't you think Shermer was aware of these objections when he reached his new conclusion?

I know as sceptics we all pride ourselves on thinking for ourselves, not allowing others to drive our conclusions, but doesn't Shermer's shift cause the least bit of doubt to arise in your thinking? Why aren't you at least re-examining the evidence, esp. the new evidence that has arisen in the past few years, to see if your conclusions need to be adjusted? Isn't that what sceptics do, rather than retrenching and repeating old arguments?

Reb

This is a good post, Reb.

I am trying to think for myself, and not allow others to drive my conclusions. Not even Shermer (why should his stance change mine? That's kind of an "appeal to authority" thing, isn't it?) I prefer to evaluate things on the info I come across. To be sure, it's slanted one way or another, and it's hard for a layman like myself to sort through the hype. BUT, I'd rather look at the papers, and research myself, learn new things from the basic data and how the researchers manipulated or evaluated it and draw my own conclusions, rather than blindly follow this or that camp because someone famous thinks this or that way.

Capal Dodger made a blatantly false statement, and I called him on it. A_Unique_Person accused me of doing something he does fairly often, and I would like to know how he justifies the double standard. These two points do not address Global Warming itself, merely what I percieve as inaccuracy and misdirection in these two member's posts at that time.

Finally, based on what I've read, yes I think global warming is occurring. No, I don't think it's anthropogenic in nature. I think it's just part of the natural cycle of the planet that spans millions of years. I also think that not enough research has been done yet to difinitively put the issue to rest. Note that this paragraph is only my opinion. That and $5 will buy you a really expensive coffee at Starbucks or somewhere like that.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't recall 'accusing' you of anything.

 

[Badger]

I could lift an elephant slightly if I wedged a toothpick under it. It's also a matter of significance.

I took the above as an accusation. If it wasn't that, what was it?

By the way, in my opinion the toothpick you are using in the Gobal Warming debate is the last 30 to 100 years of data, as opposed to the million years of ice core data recently retreived but as yet not thoroughly analysed, as well as millions of years of seabed sediment data that also has not been thoroughly analysed.

100 years is not very significant when compared to geologic timescales.

 

[varwoche]

By the way, in my opinion the toothpick you are using in the Gobal Warming debate is the last 30 to 100 years of data, as opposed to the million years of ice core data recently retreived but as yet not thoroughly analysed, as well as millions of years of seabed sediment data that also has not been thoroughly analysed.

100 years is not very significant when compared to geologic timescales.

Speaking of, two new studies based on ice core research were published in the past week...

A team of European scientists reports that climate change estimates for the next century may have substantially underestimated the potential magnitude of global warming. They say that actual warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than warming estimates that do not take into account the feedback mechanism involving carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature.
...
The researchers achieved their breakthrough by interpreting the high-resolution data from polar ice cores and temperature reconstructions based on geological proxy data in a new way.
article

results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting
...
Using as a source the Vostok ice core, which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the principal greenhouse gases, that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends.
article

 

[Badger]

Thanks, Varwoche!

I'd seen the first but not the second.