Debate over climate change science

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@Nick_Allen,

If you run a laboratory experiment for 800,000 years, and keep getting the same data - - that CO2 at 180 ppm leads to glaciation and low ocean levels… and 280 ppm leads to de-glaciation and high ocean levels… 8 different times…

… and if current CO2 levels are now at 400 ppm, which the Earth hasn’t seen for 3 million years… I think that pretty much tells the whole story.

Whatever you think is a steaming pile of nonsense must not be too important… because it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with history or reality.

CO2 levels don’t have to go up a single additional point for the following to continue to happen:

  1. heat infiltration into the coldest regions of the oceans will cause ocean levels to continue to rise;
  2. glaciers will continue to melt until only the regionally exceptional climates allow any to remain;
  3. food production will be affected because regions with good soil will become too hot, and colder regions that will become warm enough for good farming are characterized by poor soils;
  4. and the need to invest in technology for improved sequestration of carbon will become increasingly crucial.

We all need to hope and pray that the oceans don’t become so warm that the myriad tons of frozen methane off the continental shelves around the Earth do not become destabilized by an ocean that has become too warm - - releasing unprecedented levels of carbon into the environment … creating further climate shifts that lead to massive species kills not seen since the asteroid hit 65 million years ago…

Nick, your credibility has taken a huge hit in my eyes.

1 Like
22

Again, there has not been any increase in global temperature for the last 18 years.

Really? That’s great! That means that I am not self-censoring to keep from being ostracized by the group. Also, 400 ppm is not the end of the world. We have had ice ages at 8000 ppm.

23

I have said that modelling results should be examined, and the last time I looked at these, the results were given as a spread. We may debate the actual numbers, but the Greenhouse effect has been examined in detail, including atmospheric chemistry, the carbon cycle, and the capacity to increase the amount of heat that may be retained due to GHG. Since this is beyond dispute, we may argue about the severity and timing of continuous increases in CO2 concentrations, but not to the qualitatively correct conclusion.

I do not like things becoming politicised, but even from the discussions on this site, you can see that we will eventually adopt a position and belief that politicians and similar chaps will try to exploit. Sadly that is also a fact of life.

1 Like
25

@Nick_Allen,

This is the problem with people who make knee-jerk proclamations against science.

Since the joining of North and South America, dramatically changing the Earth’s baseline climate (stopping any East/West flow that occurred between the two America’s and promoting the new and powerful Gulf Stream flow), the Earth’s proclivity towards Ice Ages and sensitivity to CO2 were re-set to fluctuate between 180 to 280 ppm. The Earth regularly alternated between massive glaciation vs. little glaciation, based on just a shift of 100 ppm - - the current CO2 level of 400 ppm has completely swamped out this regular alternation.

Referring to earlier phases of Earth history is deliberately deceptive and quite irrelevant to the way the Earth has been working for almost the last million years.

26

We are beyond debates of what if fair and not fair and the global view is slowly accepting the qualitative aspects of GHG and associated problems. We must look to the future and this should be (and will be I believe) to use this as an opportunity to improve ways to make power available to all countries, be using scarce fuels more efficiently, and to use science and engineering to solve problems while increasing economic prosperity - the US is in the best position to lead the world towards such a future.

3 Likes
27

@GJDS Have you watched any of the videos or read any of the papers that I have linked to? The video of Dr. William Happer testifying is only 7 minutes and gives a comprehensive overview of what I am talking about. The interview with Freeman Dyson explains how the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a positive thing that is responsible for a large part of the green revolution that puts food on our tables. The severity that we are arguing about is .5 of a degree total warming over the next hundred years, which will have no negative effect whatsoever on anything.

Science is not a religion that one can make proclamations against. This is why this thread belongs on Biologos. With that simple statement you are summing up pretty much all of the problems that the mainstream has with YEC. Might I point out that science is not a political ideology, or a religion, or a mark of sophistication. Science is a method. Part of that method is review of results and argument, and disagreement.

Um, no.

28

You are making claims about the science, so you need to present evidence for your claims. It’s as simple as that. If you cannot present evidence for your claims, then your claims may be dismissed completely out of hand.

They do. There’s nothing stopping ID proponents from posting right here whenever their views are attacked.

The rest includes the fact that human activity is responsible for unprecedented global warming in the history of the human species. That is established science. It is not speculation. Trying to change the subject to matters of politics and ideology is simply a way to try and escape the established science.

The science of anthropogenic climate change research goes back to the late nineteenth century. It is very telling that for most of that time it was considered that anthropogenic climate change would be either insignificant or would be beneficial. There was no conspiracy pushing the idea of AGW on ideological or political grounds, nor was the science of AGW opposed on ideological or political grounds. It was not until the 1980s, when governments decided that action had to be taken, that industries started to mount campaigns opposing the scientific facts. Such opposition was clearly financially motivate, and had nothing to do with science.

_AGW.PNG1906×1361 244 KB

We know now that companies such as Exxon Mobile had their own scientists working on the issue, and that their own scientists were simply confirming the fact of AGW; naturally such companies kept this information secret.

It’s interesting that rejection of the scientific fact of AGW correlates strongly with religious conservatism and rejection of the scientific fact of evolution.

This is strong evidence that religious belief, as opposed to scientific knowledge, is driving the rejection in both cases. Since religious conservatives tend to be fearful of science and distrust its results (“Scyence ys ye worke off ye deuil!”), this is not surprising.

_evolution & AGW denial.jpg1484×1482 205 KB

1 Like
29

@Nick_Allen, yes, science is a method. But several statements you have made in your posts on global warming are designed to mislead, rather than EXPLORE the methods of science.

1 Like
30

I am well aware of the factors related to GHG and associated research - I have also spent some time considering the opposing views. That is why I have made the comments on models. The argument that increasing CO2 would increase the food on or tables is banal - the carbon cycle is well understood, but trying to make a direct link between agricultural production and increases in CO2 concentrations is, as I said, banal. We should argue against deforestation to help the planet deal to some extent with the CO2 levels. It is also understood there are many factors that need to be considered regarding global warming, so the extent of temperature increases (and also extremes in weather patters) is yet to be completely quantified. But saying that CO2 increases can continue unabated, and the results will be beneficial, is simply astonishing and extremely irresponsible. Human activity has caused very significant increases in CO2 levels, and this trend must be stopped and reversed. Those who oppose this approach are simply indulging in their brand of politics/ideology.

3 Likes
31

That is absolutely true, and substantiated robustly by scientific facts.

1 Like
32

I have linked to presentations by Dr. William Happer, Ivar Giaever, Freeman Dyson and Dr. Tim Ball all presenting evidence that AGW is a non-threat. According to satellite data, there has been no warming for 18 years.

If you would like to understand how Obama and the IPCC claim that recent years are the warmest in history, then go to Dr. Tim Ball’s video to 1:25:50.

Nothing I have stated has been designed to mislead anyone. You are attributing intent where it does not exist. When I point out that the graphs showing correlation between CO2 atmospheric content do not support causation of global warming by CO2, I am simply showing that the 800 year lag in CO2 rise which FOLLOWS rises in temperature, proves that the temperature increase was not caused by the CO2. I would agree that the Milankovitch Effect and solar activity drive climate. I disagree with your assertion that because we are over 288 ppm atmospheric CO2 then the planet is destined to warm in the near future. I have provided support for this disagreement with the article CO2 Nears 400 ppm. . . .

Actually, Exxon published all of their research in peer reviewed journals. Exxon and the other oil companies have a financial interest in the adoption of carbon credit schemes. In Australia, the oil and coal companies made money off of carbon credits. This caused electricity rates in Australia to go up unnecessarily. Of course people complained, and the government scrapped the carbon credit scheme and decided to just give money to the utilities.

33

The beneficial relationship between CO2 levels and plant growth is directly measurable and fully understood. The effects of CO2 on climate is less measurable and highly disputed. This is Freeman Dyson’s point in the interview that I have linked to above. The idea that the world can switch from coal to wind, when coal produces electricity at 5 cents/Kwh and wind produces electricity at 26 cents/Kwh is not logical.

34

What exactly is “it”. Which results are we talking about here? Why is it bad to distrust “it”. I suggest to you that there are conflicting results, many of which I have linked to on this thread. I also suggest to you that distrust is skepticism and that skepticism is good. I also suggest to you that carbon is good. Blindly following the lead of an elite, whether political or scientific, only leads everyone into a ditch. If you will excuse me, I have to leave for Church.

35

@Nick_Allen

What you said was that CO2 had nothing to do with warming… And this is false.

You imply that climate scientists think CO2 is the CAUSE of warming. This too is a false.

The Milankovitch Cycle is the CAUSE … the DRIVER of warming… but the feedback loop between the Cycle and CO2 makes it possible for the warming trends to continue to advance. Warming doesn’t end until the Milankovitch Cycle reverses and allows CO2 levels to go down.

But now that we are at 400 ppm, the Cycle (which drove fluctuations back and forth between 180 and 280 ppm) is now flooded out.

As for graphs, your graph seems to DISGUISE the problem, rather than explain it:

12-of-15-hottest-years.jpg693×845 116 KB

As you can see here … there has been PLENTY OF WARMING since 1900 !

2 Likes
36

[quote=“Nick_Allen, post:32, topic:5379”]
I have linked to presentations by Dr. William Happer, Ivar Giaever, Freeman Dyson and Dr. Tim Ball all presenting evidence that AGW is a non-threat. [/quote]

I was actually talking to Eddie, but I notice you have not addressed the more than 100 years of scientific data and accurate predictions which I presented.

As for what you presented, Happer is a physicist (not a climatologist), who receives money from fossil fuel companies to advocate for their behalf against the science of climate change, Dyson is a theoretical physicist (not a climatologist), who presents the evidence selectively, and Tim Ball is a professor of geography (!), not even a scientist, who is a paid advocate for fossil fuel companies and who believes there is a secret conspiracy to reduce the world’s population (!). These are not credible sources, not least because they lack the relevant qualifications, have not published any relevant peer reviewed literature, and their views are situated on the absolute fringe of the subject, against the overwhelming scientific consensus.

This is typical of the misleading tactics of denialists; select a tiny non-representative sample, and try to argue it is representative. You’re supposed to be showing that there has been no warming for at least one hundred years.

The fact that you cite a graph saying “According to satellite data, there has been no warming for 18 years” shows you do not actually understand what the graph is and isn’t showing. This article will help.

Climate change doubters may have lost one of their key talking points: a particular satellite temperature dataset that had seemed to show no warming for the past 18 years.

Now for this.

Back in the 1980s they had research which they knew was evidence of AGW, and they knew this before the public did. They did not publish this in peer reviewed journals. They kept it secret, publicly claimed AGW was not true, and poured millions of dollars into anti-climate change science campaigns.

Please show me all the evidence that from the 1980s onwards Exxon was publicly stating that AGW was a fact and advocating carbon credits.

Science, like the sentence says.

These.

Because in this case it’s like distrusting the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, or the statement that humans landed on the moon. More generally, laypeople with no relevant knowledge or qualifications in a field, should not be claiming that they know more than a scientific consensus which has been substantiated through multiple independent lines of evidence and has persistently resisted every effort at falsification.

3 Likes
37

@Nick_Allen,

You really should stop saying things that are wrong or misleading.

WARMING:
The effects of global warming is already being felt in food prices:

http://wema.aatf-africa.org/news/media/global-warming-has-reduced-maize-and-wheat-yields

QUOTABLE QUOTE: “Global warming has already reduced the global yields of key crops, say scientists. Maize and wheat production have been 3.8 and 5.5 per cent lower, respectively, than they would have been without the temperature rises associated with climate change since the 1980s, according to the statistical analysis. . . . . Linking climate change to food prices for the first time, the scientists, led by David Lobell of Stanford University, United States, have shown that these losses have probably led to at least a six per cent rise in food prices between 1980 and 2008.”

“[NOTE] Rice and soya yields have dropped in some parts of the world and risen in others, so overall the warming has not changed their net global production.”

ENERGY
The point about using more renewable energy sources is highly dependent on developing technologies that allow cities and nations to affordably produce the energy now being produced by coal. Alternative energy technology is not yet ready for the market and requires a NASA-like coordination of technological firms to continue to advance an area where America can lead in both JOBS and EDUCATION.

2 Likes
38

The debates and arguments become convoluted until no-one can follow any reasoning. Average global temperatures have risen by 0.85degC over the period in which CO2 levels have constantly increased (last time I looked). This is significant by any measure - but fluctuations are indeed observed. Plant growth and food production is related to farming practices - allowing vegetation and forests to grow can be beneficial, cutting down forests works against the trend(s).

There is no doubt that low cost electricity generation is beneficial, and high efficiency coal fuelled plant would reduce CO2 levels by 30-40% and keep prices low, and reduce the use of coal and gas; but capital needs to be invested on a large scale, and the political battles have created uncertainty, while opposition by the US has not helped matters.

I will not continue with more detail - suffice to say that we do have a problem, the problem can be addressed in a positive way, but the political turmoil hinders advances.

39

I am aware of a number of reports, showing average global land temperatures, average global temperatures, and regional average temperatures. A general average reported by NASA is about 0.85 deg C over the period considered (since about 1970 for most data points, but I can be corrected). Averaged land temperatures as reported range from ~2.5deg C, ~1.2 deg C, and probably other values.

It is uncontestable however, that whatever method is used, average global temperatures have increased, and the trend follows the trend in increasing CO2 levels.

2 Likes