How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"


#781

No one is (or at least no one should be) arguing the worlds temperature is not increasing. Even @KHHville the scientist you just cited, Richard Lindzen, as being eminently qualified openly admits that. despite being on the fringe and despite aligning with known think tanks and getting caught fudging the numbers.

So, to put it in perspective, to find someone who claims the planet has not been warming you have to go even further than the already fringe scientists and find people outside of science altogether or full blown activists who just don’t care about facts.

Fringe scientists like Linzden play with the variables, claim natural warming is larger than it is, hence anthropogenic is smaller than claimed and play up the uncertainty of predicting the future. They do not claim anthropogenic warming is not a thing at all, because they know full well such a claim is stupid.

Talking of stupid, Trump just did his yearly global warming troll tweet. I swear if global warming was the only topic which mattered, I’d be throwing him under the bus twice as fast as anyone else.


#782

it’s called temperature extremes, and the great thing called Earth is more powerful than 6-7 billion people on a small portion of its surface.

:point_up_2:, I’m reposting this again. Temperature extremes go in cycles. It is not out of the realm of possibility that we see a cooling.
Ask the Midwesterners today in the US if there is global warming. :point_down: (that is Fahrenheit and not including wind chill)


#783

What’s the temperature scale in this plot?


#784


#785

I love the way the last few years are just labelled ‘worldwide weather extremes’.

LMAO

Them they have a dotted line that is predicted to shoot up but then has a arrow that drops down again hehe.


#786

Yet you never admit the cold weather extremes.
They are there. The :earth_africa: has cycles lasting hundreds of years of extreme hot and extreme cold.
You ever read what the newspapers were screaming 40-70 years ago? the opposite of what you are screaming now. I can show them to you.
They scream global colding as loud as you scream global warming.

You disregard the :earth_africa: is more powerful than mere humans’ presence on its surface.


#787

We didn’t have 409ppm CO2 all those years ago and an ocean that’s already heating up and starting to acidify.
That’s the highest CO2 level in 3 to 5 million years. It takes time for the insulating gas increase to result in heat build up.

From the chart (which is assuming some things as well I’m sure) the temp is now the hottest for 2000 years.

Also our knowledge of climate science and our computational power has vastly improved. Climate models and weather forecasting are far more accurate.

We are now entering the anthropogenic era. Earth has always been affected by the biology (hence oxygen in the rocks etc) but now humans are in the driving seat.


#788

#789

So, with MORE CO2 now, the temperature extreme is about the same as when there was much much less CO2 hundreds and thousands of years ago at temperature peaks, meaning earth is strong like a bull. You just shot a hole in your own theory of a linear progression of ever higher temperatures…


#790

It takes a few decades for the affects of the CO2 build up to be seen. C02 produced now results in warming decades later ! It’s just physics.


#791

25-PM

So:

  1. newspapers in 1939 and 1952 screaming the end of the world with melting ice everywhere.
  2. newspapers in 1961 and 1975 screaming ice buildup, go out and get ready to live in igloos everybody.
    And now present-day: read 1) above

Cycles, it’s all cycles.


#792

That’s irrelevant to be honest.
I listen to modern climate scientists predictions based on modern science, peer reviewed publications with massive computing power . Also recent warming trend has been very pronounced which correlates with CO2 strongly, once ocean heat sink affect is accounted for.


#793

Ok, I will do this one time, but I will avoid getting dragged into the never ending nonsensical denial nonsense that is churned out for a gullible but eager and hungry crowd who eat this stuff up.

Notice by the way how you went from the eminent although fringe MIT professor to Meteorologist Randy Mann, that in and of itself should clue you in, plus the Mickey Mouse version you have below is typical distortions, no X axis, dates on the Y show 1982, 1991, 2016 implying a exponential axis, then you look closer at the spacing 1200 to 1400 to 1600, no thats linear spaces of 200, so the thing screams bullshit. I suggest checking out this site, it discusses the exact graph you have.

It also shows the actual data.

But your graph was prepared by a ONE Climatologist, which I looked up and couldn’t find anything about him. The link I provided explains why, if true.

The views of ‘Cliff Harris’ are a bit unique. There seem to be no climatology papers by him (if you see C Harris, that’s Charles Harris) and this “graph” has multiple errors. Allegedly Cliff Harris actually studied insurance law. Source

This is the typical stuff coming from the denialists camp, they just don’t stop to think. A guy who studied insurance law passing himself off as a Climatologist is believed over the vast majority of actual Climatologists.

Including the eminent climatologist you just promoted hardly 5 minutes ago, who you demanded must be believed because he knows much more than anyone here. Yet when I say he too believes in anthropogenic warming, he too doesn’t challenge the claim we are warming. Then you go off to complete loons outside of the scientific community in an attempt to double down and completely throw your own advice of taking Linzden seriously out the window.

edit to add this graphic, kind of informative.


#794

so, namecalling with “denialist”?
works so very not well.
do you disregard those historical temperature extremes? hot temperatures of course exist, yet it appears any discussion about Earth’s historical temperatures only start in the last 40 years with you all.


#795

no of course not, natural variability exists and has existed for thousands of years. It is a variable.

Co2 emissions from humans, is another variable and were negligible before lets say 100 years ago.

Therefore the period of most interest is the last 100 or even 50 years where there has been an increased level of warming beyond what could be explained by natural variation.

The question isn’t even if we are experiencing some level of anthropogenic warming, it is how much. By a large percentage of actual Climate Scientists most of the warming is attributed to anthropogenic warming, Linzden would be in the group that think the other way round, but doesn’t dispute anthropogenic warming because that really is plain stupid.

Sorry if you took offense. To claim there is no anthropogenic warming, is really not only dismissing all the known data. It is flying in the face of the one solid fact in all this. Which is a doubling of Co2 will lead to a 1 degree rise in temperature, in a black box environment.

Our Co2 levels have nearly doubled, we have seen increases in mean temperature outside of what could be explained by natural variation.

All that is left is how much to weigh the variables, natural variation is one, Co2 gases, and other gases, some negatively impacting the climate and some with positive, how to factor in other feedbacks like water to a rising climate, the list goes on.

But what we can’t say, is it is not happening, at all. I’m sorry if it sounds harsh, but that really is denying reality, I don’t know another way to put it.


#796

Mick, regarding our conversation about Lindzen: speaking in terms of academic debate, I agree. As a society, I think there’s no place for it, though. First of all, along the lines of throwing darts at a wall of photos, I’m not sure why we should pay attention to his opinion anymore than some random climate researcher, say, Katherine Hayhoe or Susan Solomon. Further, if we leave open the door to outlying opinions in the public debate, that’s simply a convenient goal-post moving option if conservatives don’t like the solution that gets settled upon. Everybody needs to agree that 1) climate change is real 2) it is human-caused and 3) the consequences of the likeliest scenario according to the IPCC are what we be basing our discussion on. If we can’t do that, the discussion basically cannot be honestly had.

And btw I can’t stand AOC. Liberals who scream about Trump’s erroneous statements and obvious lies but then support her in spite of hers are outrageous hypocrites.


#797

Agree with 1
You are stating that it is all human-caused? I disagree. I agree that Humans have been reckless and have contributed to it , of course. The degree to which that may be , is dependent on the Models used.
So “skeptic” is perhaps an incorrect use of the word, for people that see the obvious relationship, but also see the impossibility of predicting accurately.
The people that disagree seem to be making the point that we still do not know the root causes of Temperature and Climate changes, although we can point out instances of larger variations.
As we saw from the previous attempt, there is a lot of evidence to support Human causation BUT , following the money , anyone who dares to object would be villified by the "General Scientific " community.
That does reduce the objection rate a little, at least , publically .
Causation is the key, and some of the policies to reduce filthy emissions are commendable for our health anyway …and common sense.


#798

Look. We know about the Milancovich Cycle. We know that we came out of the last glacial period ten thousand years ago, give or take. We know we are supposed to be on a relative climate plateau now (called an interglacial period), and that at some point in the distant future, we should be heading into another glacial period. Instead we are rocketing upward temperature-wise in the wrong direction at 20x faster than we came out of the last glacial period. Meanwhile TSI or total solar irradiation has been flat and then gone into decline since the mid-twentieth century. So any reasonable person who doesn’t have an agenda can agree, WE are the cause.


#799

There are so many “Cycles” . All I am saying is that we are not able to quantify Human causation accurately. You appreciate there are other factors, that are difficult to predict. Even with Solar Irradiance , there are 11 year cycles , 88 year cycles, 208 year cycles, 1000 year cycles, just maybe the Sun plays a greater part than we think.
Awful lot of theoretical modelling going on. Yes , the majority of Scientists seem to think we are a major cause. I accept that. Not being stubborn but , you reject alternative possibilities out of hand? I do not know the answer , but can only surmise the possibilities . So I am fine with you saying that there is a strong possibility …and it is highly likely etc.
That is what our best guess, based on current data is. I just remember Science changing so rapidly , against the majority consensus , a few times in the past. Whilst the debate continues , we should be planting trees and doing our bit anyway.


#800

The point I am making is you are overstating the certainty with which variables exist and trying to eliminate others from the discussion. Can you find me anywhere in the IPCC reports where it says “we are 100% certain all warming is due to anthropogenic causes”?

The answer is you can’t because they don’t. They do say with very high confidence most of the recent warming, or the vast majority is very likely to be caused by anthropogenic causes. Which is fine, if your contention is that a reasonable person would deduce from that, that we are causing the planet to warm, I would agree.

In fact it was over reliance on anthropogenic causes that resulted in the first climate models failing, we are now onto the 4th? report. They had to include all the natural variations in to get what they think now is a more accurate model.

But in doing so and while they have been critical of Linzden all the while, his main point was the accuracy of the models was to be doubted because they were too simplistic to be useful. He is noteworthy because regarding the number of variables that need to be calculated in predictive modeling he is and was right, it is extremely complex. Much more so than I suspect the overly confident scientists realized.