Slashdot Mirror
Humans are Causing Global Warming
Big_Al_B writes "A Times Online article discusses a new study comparing 7 million real world datapoints with several computer models of global warming. Each model had a possible cause associated with it." From the article: "It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "
Both sides of the debate are too set in their thoughts that no amount of data will change their opinions.
and I thought it was the crab people that was the cause of it all.
Despite that the US the has not signed the Kyoto treaty [yet].
No way!!! And all this time I was blaming the sun...
Sorry Sol.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Even the Bush White House has said over six months ago that humans are responsible for global warming. Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...
Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is a myth perpertrated by scientists after funding money, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things :
i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I mean, it isn't even a topic of debate outside the US, people accept it as fact.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html/
Interesting speech by Michael Crichton on whether global warming is science or politics and what the difference is. Highly recommended no matter what side you are on.
Of course, who wants to be on the side of ignoring or supporting the widespread destruction of the planet by humans? Therein likes the rub...
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
It's funny when you read the articles arguing against Kyoto, though: they always end with "Kyoto is fatally flawed, and it'll cost too much to cut CO2, so we should wait to do it." Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?
The funny thing about all of this is that Canada stands to make out really well. Our four-month growing season will probably become more like the American midwest's 6 -8 months, and our boreal forest ecosystem will shift to a St.Lawrence-Deciduous style forest, which is much more habitable for humans. Also we have a ton of oil here.
Of course, there's the problem of Prince Edward Island probably being under water by then. And oh yes, countries like Bangladesh or the Maldives which will be entirely under water if Antartica (i.e. Ross Ice Shelf) starts to melt. My view is that the best thing to do as an individual is a) bike to work (which I intend to do for the first time this summer), b) keep your house colder than you normally would, and c) evangelize energy efficiency. I don't really see that I can do anymore (aside from reading everything I can) as an just one person with no government connections.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
Not that facts often change politics-based opinions.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html
Hey, just because it's Friday and some of us started drinking early doesn't mean we're responsible for global warming. Leave my cow orkers out of it!
Here's a hypothesis.
1. Global warming will result in colder temperatures in some currently heavily populated regions.
2. People tend to stay inside when it is colder.
3. Staying inside increases the likely hood of procreation.
Therefore, global warming will cause humans.
I'm sure once again we'll see more pointless deabate as opposed to thinking over the issues involved.
Me? I look at it this way. There's a lot of good information out there and a lot of experienced people have made very sober arguments about the issues of global warming. So, I give them credit, and figure that the efforts to reduce global warming, even if they do nothing, are unlikely to have a significant negative impact.
I'd say global warming appears to be one of those things like evolution . . . but I'd be right in more ways than one.
I do find it amusing to see people argue that a large number of experienced, intelligent, educated people are somehow irrelevant because some pundit shoots off his mouth. I'd like to start a talk show, then begin discussing how only egghead crackpots believe seatbelts save lives and that eating fried lard is unhealthy. I wonder how many people I could decieve into terribly unhealthy habits just by shooting my mouth off long enough.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
Your point reminds me of idiots who get overly shook up over 'record highs', 'record lows', 'record snowfall'. . .
"OMG! Did you hear the Weather Channel guy? He said it's NEVER been this cold in February before! That's AMAZING!" -- like they're living a part of history.
Um, pretty sure it's been colder. And hotter. And wetter. And you name it. Just not that we're aware of.
Sweet informative mod.
You're being pedantic. The animals that place 2nd and 3rd behind man in terms of altering the environment are the dam-building beaver and the bush-stomping elephant. Man's changes the environment are many, many orders of magnitude greater.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that damming a river or strip mining or clear-cutting forest can't be defined as "negative" to our surroundings, but I'd like to know. Positive to man's economy, sure. But positive to the environment? Are you for real?
I have an article from the April 14th, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer. In that article, it tells me that, prior to that time, the amount of energy from the Sun wasn't been recorded.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I know output from any star can and does fluctuate. If, prior to 2003, this data wasn't being collected, and if as far as I know, this data isn't being used in studies...I will remain skeptical.
I'm sorry. But little things like energy from the Sun are important variables I would like to have mapped against warming trends before I come to any conclusions.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
We have climate data from ice cores drilled into miles of ice in the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica. This data goes back hundreds of thousands of years. The method uses stable isotopes Oxygen-16 and Oxygen-18. Using the ratios of those two isotopes a scientist can determine climate as old as the ice he is sampling.
It is not worth the paper it is written on. If a treaty's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions and other pollution then why does it create system to buy or sell the right to pollute? That one part alone makes this treaty trash.
Worse two of the bigger economies, economies driven by industries that pollute heavyily, of China and India essentially immune to it?
Also, by 2012 when the treaty comes up for renewal what happens when no one meets their goals? Both Canada and Japan don't have real plans to meet the goals as neither do a few European countries. We all know the glacial pace of politics, are you really thinking they can do it?
This is nothing more than a song and dance treaty. It makes people feel good and gives them villains to put the blame on for increased pollution. It is not based on real science instead it is based on consensus.
The US will never sign the treaty because it does nothing to protect the environment worldwide. Worst case scenario is that it simply transfer pollution from one part of the world to another.
If you want to reduce pollution then come up with a system that applies fairly to ALL countries and get them ALL aboard. Hell, India and China have already expressed concern - as in they won't agree - with the proposed followup treaties in 2012.
Kyoto is politics at its worst. It was only written to score points in the internation cooties game.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
humans cause global warming. this is as much fact as cigarettes cause cancer.
we're at the stage when the public knows about cigarettes and the conspiracy to cover up the data. but for global warming, we're still in the "don't listen to those commie environmentalists, everyone else drives SUVs, don't YOU want to be cool too?" stage.
the only problem is by the time global warming is a big problem we'll ALL be fucked.
That works great for Greenland and Antartica, but what about America, Europe, and the rest of the world... Unless your telling me the ice sheetes from Greenland and Antartica are able to tell us what the weather was like everywhere, I just figured it would tell us about what the weather was like there...
Please tell me if I am wrong, it's just what makes the most sense to me
I have worse karma than M$.
Take a step back for a moment. Being right on this one SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER.
What does matter is this:
As we reduce greenhouse gases--even if they're not a threat and/or causing global warming: Conversely, if we wait too long because no one can agree on data points to study then on data validity then on data modeling, etc., etc., at least we'll make great pets.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Kind of off-topic, but what the heck...
I have a friend who worked as support staff at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and he said the scientific staff had an "Ice Before Christ" party, where they used ice from some core samples that were dated to several thousand years ago to make margaritas and use in their cocktails and such. Kinda neat, if a little silly.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Depends on which "christian" point of view. Arguing that "you shouldn't treat others as you want them to treat you" won't get too far. Arguing that "an invisible spirit created the universe 7000 years ago", because you read it in your favorite version of a 2,000 year old book, will get you about as far as arguing that "the Sun revolves around the Earth". As for other christian points of view, like "homosexuals and witches must be stoned to death", YMMV. You're not in the kind of company that gets to pick and choose which POV anyone else should adopt, on the basis only of pure faith, and your book - among whom the buzz these days is "use it up, Jesus is coming soon". When you've got a way to back it up with evidence and logic, you have a better chance of saying it in public.
--
make install -not war
I find it interesting that his conclusion was that the Bush administration needs to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Not that we as a planet need to do this or that. This isn't so much a scientific study as it is "hey, we have a computer model we can bash the U.S. with now." Nevermind the fact that the U.S. has done so much to cut emissions already in the last 30 years. Any article that includes "the Bush administration needs to do this or that" is highly suspect to me. If you want me to take you seriously, then give me the science, not the neo-political crap. It only shows that you indeed have an agenda.
I'll be interested to see the fallout of this once the details are published. If it indeed shows it's humanities fault, so be it. Understand it's just as much the rest of the worlds fault as anyones.
Until you understand the difference between "fossil records" and "climate data", you will never understand the debate. The simple fact is that we don't have climate data for more than a very short period of the earth's history. The rest is guesswork.
And the other fact you need to face is that modelers spends hours and hours tweaking their models until they "look right", and if "humans are the cause of global warming" is what looks right to them (and they get paid to get that result) then that is what the models say. Models need real data to work right (which we don't have) and real understanding of the processes (guess wrong and you get the wrong answer.)
I remember one NOAA model that came out a few years ago showing a sudden upturn in temperatures just about to happen. CALAMITY! WOE! This was supposed to be the latest and most accurate model. Proof beyond all doubt that we were ruining the planet!
It didn't happen.
Insightful indeed.
The biggest problem that the anhtropogenic global warming scenario has with the public is that some of them remember the world is headed toward a new ice age theory from the early Seventies. The other problem is that first your told that carbs are good, then your told that carbs are bad. First your told that stress causes ulcers, but come to find out ulcers are caused by a type of germ.
People really are suffering from information overload. They live busy lives, and it's all they can do to keep up with their own lives, and that that of their families. It also does not help that 'The Academy' has become so heavily populated with folks with very left-wing social, and political agendas. Large sections of Americans do not trust institutions that they view as hot beds of neo-marxist pointy-headed, ivory tower bound granolas. Most of all they don't trust the chicken-little, 'doom is at hand' rhetoric that so many advocates (those who advance the theory of) of anhtropogenic warming. They have seen this pose before, and it's has become a pose that they very deeply distrust.
It's also not helpful that the whole dooms-day asteroid scenario has gotten so heavily played up by the Discovery Channel, etc.. In fact the dooms-day via natural event thing has completely out of control on several of the cable "science" channels, and in the general media as well. Many Americans see global warming as just another of the scenarios, and like the others interesting but not relevant to daily life. Indeed, it seems to me at least that the shows that draw big ratings on the cable 'science' channels are really nothing more that 'scientific' soap-operas. Drama! Drama! Drama! Will the world survive the crash of the asteroid?!?!!!!!! Tune in tomorrow, and find out!
Computer models are not going to change the publics mind. Hey you can use a computer model to generate FX such as in the Matrix and other movies to produce whatever scenario you'd like.
Hard data, analyzed by trusted, and calm minds is the only thing that the public will take seriously. The chicken-little presentations must get flushed, and solutions, plans, etc. must be presented with a 'can do' attitude. i.e. 'we've got a problem, and here's our options.' 'The problem is serious, but not insurmountable.' Until such time as those who believe in the anhtropogenic global warming scenario come to this realization very many Americans will view this theory with deep skepticism.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Archaean and Proterozoic fossils are billions (with a B) of years old.
Archaean & Proterozoic fossils on Google.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
To use comments out of context is a disengenous ploy. Willful ignorance and deceit are not virtous behaviour.
I'd hate to be a conservative these days. Either the world is only 6000 years old and there is definitely enough historical data to confirm that global warming is man-made, or it's millions of years old and there isn't enough evidence for us to be completely certain.
Either way, they lose...
As for me, whether global warming is man-made or not, I'm still going to work to make the earth cleaner and more hospitable, by trying to use less energy or use it more efficiently, find cleaner fuels, not dump junk into the air and water and basically try to be a good steward. Have conservatives just completely lost the desire to be good like that? Is the quest for money so overwhelming that it blocks out all those other desires? What's going on, and when did it become wrong to try to do good for Mother Earth?
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
"Every Reputable Scientist on the Planet" believed in Global Cooling in the 70s and early 80s.
... wait a minute, I'm thinking ... hold on ...
There's a word for this argument. It's on the tip of my tongue
Oh yeah! It's called a "lie."
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Wow. Every single sentence in your post is wrong. How you even manage to breathe is beyond me:
Why is it that anyone who goes against the common, left-leaning attitude here on /. regarding politics or science is automatically branded with either "troll" or "overrated"?
They aren't. I see plenty of posts which go against the common, left-leaning attitude on /. which have been modded insightful or interesting.
The parent is 100% correct!
He is not.
We have practically no climate data of any real value beyond a few hundred years or so, yet we're expected to just ooh and aah every time some simulation from some scientist comes across that purports exactly how climates change over eons.
There is plenty of climate data beyond a few hundred years or so, such as ice cores, the fossil record, geological evidence, etc.
Our own weather forecasters can't even get the weather correct 48 hours in advance most of the time (save for areas like the equator and extreme north/south, of course). Yet, we're supposed to believe that the climate can be accurately simulated for millions or billions of years by having a few hundred years of data and some simulations?
The one has nothing to do with the other. Weather is small scale (in space and in time) and chaotic, climate is large scale. It is much easier to predict large scale behaviour due to the law of averages. Don't make the mistake of thinking that climate must be chaotic because weather is; climate causes weather, not the other way around.
We're going to have global warming because the scientists so!
No, where going to have global warming because of polution of the atmosphere.
Oh, wait! Just 30 years ago we were supposed to be entering a new ice age because the scientists said so!
First of all: no scientist ever said that we definitely were going to enter a new ice age. Scientists don't talk like that. They speak in theories and likelihoods. If a scientist says an event is likely, and it doesn't occur, that doesn't mean he was wrong. You clearly don't understand the first thing about science or scientists.
Secondly: we still might get an ice age. The global warming might trigger one because it may increase the cloud cover of the Earth, causing more sunlight to be reflected back into space.
Sailors from hundreds of years ago reported the unusually warm, Pacific waters hundreds of hears before the Industrial Revolution! Oh, wait! El Nino is actually being caused by global warming because the scientists said so!
Nobody says that El Nino is caused by global warming. Nobody actually knows what causes El Nino, since it is caused by an incredibly complex and diverse set of circumstances. All scientists ever said is that the likelihood of El Nino occurring seems to be increasing as the Earth warms up. That doesn't mean that El Nino couldn't be occurring already hundreds of years ago.
An asteroid is going to slam into us in 30 years because scientists said so!
No scientist ever said that. They said as far as they could tell with the available data, it was possible that it would hit the Earth.
Oh, wait! It's actually going to miss us by about 1 million miles because other scientists said so.
Wrong again. They were the same scientists, and the reason they were now saying it was probably going to miss the Earth is that they now had better data (since the asteroid was closer) so they could determine more accurately what the probably trajector of the asteroid was going to be.
And now ... humans are the cause of global warming because some scientist said so, and the parent is a troll because some moderator said so. Oh, wait! ...
Not some scientist said so, the majority of scientsts say so. Just not the ones in Bush's cozy little world...
Dumbass...
Hmmm. Interesting you are saying there is an organized conspiracy by scientists to commit fraud upon the entire planet. It's amazing how these scientists have been able to co-operate on such a massive scale. All over the world the scientists are working hard to carry out their conspiracy and are doing it very effectively.
"I remember one NOAA model that came out a few years ago showing a sudden upturn in temperatures just about to happen"
There was an uptrun in tempratures. Species are suffering, the ice caps are melting, the glaciers have all but gone away. I guess none of that qualifies as a calamity in your book though.
evil is as evil does
And the other fact you need to face is that modelers spends hours and hours tweaking their models until they "look right", and if "humans are the cause of global warming" is what looks right to them (and they get paid to get that result) then that is what the models say.
Perhaps this is true. But those on the other side do it as well - they also train their "there's no problem" models to fit all the weather data that is available.
Which is why this particular study is so very important - they didn't tweak the models, they took a bunch of existing tweaked models and applied them to another set of data. The models made predictions about ocean temperatures, but hadn't been tweaked with them.
And it turns out that the predictions of the "the greenhouse effect is currently causing warming" models were very close to the actual measurements, and the predictions of the "it's volcanic activity / a solar cycle / natural fluctuations in weather" models totally failed.
This study addresses exactly that criticism of yours, and it blows it away.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The simple fact is that we don't have climate data for more than a very short period of the earth's history. The rest is guesswork.
Not quite. We don't have weather data for more than a very short period of the Earth's history. We've got millions of years of climate data.
To say the Earth was warmer when the dinosaurs roamed, we don't need to know that the high was 97 degrees in what will become Los Angeles on January 19th, 2,619,847 BCE, and it rained 2 inches. Instead, we can look at the fosilized tropical plants and thus know it was warmer and wetter.
I remember one NOAA model that came out a few years ago showing a sudden upturn in temperatures just about to happen.
Yes, one model was wrong, therefore all future models should be completely ignored. The geocentric model of the solar system was wrong, therefore this new-fangled heliocentric model must be wrong too.
In all seriousness, predictive models about the climate are really in their infancy...but this story is not about predictive models. These models are being compared to historical trends in the earth's climate, in order to figure out which one matches what we can already tell about the climate.
The fact the closest match was a model where human activity did cause global warming does lend some support to the idea that we do cause global warming...but it's also possible that it was a combination of the natural factors instead of individual factors that caused it.
Or even more likely, a combination of natural and human factors.
We don't have thousands and thousands of years of climate data, let alone multiple periods' worth.
We don't have thousands of years of weather data. We do have thousands of years of climate data, thanks to fossils and ice cores.
Weather data is specific, as in "67 degrees F and rained 1/4 of an inch".
Climate data is more general, such as "averages 50-70 degrees in winter, raining 10 inches".
We don't need to have collected weather data in order to get climate data, it just makes the climate data more accurate. But we can use the ice cores/fossils to say that, within a reasonable margin of error, the average tempature rose by 3 degrees over a particular 10,000 year period.
I think the reason that your post was modded so highly is because you posted the conclusion that so many people want to hear, which is, essentially, "Chrichton is sloppy at best, mendacious at worst for daring question the Truth about global warming." But, as with so many things, the devil's in the details.
... As we in this line of research are fond of pointing out to students in our introductory classes, 'Climate is what you expect; Weather is what you get'. Crichton would have been well served if he had read this tutorial on the distinction between the two...."
You labeled RealClimate.org's critique as a "detailed examination." But was it really that detailed? I read it, and it seems to me that they are only able to raise three objections, which I will detail here (easy, since there are only three):
1. Chricton claims, "No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality."
- RealClimate.org responds with, "Crichton should know that this assertion is false. He cites in the 'bibliography' at the end of his book, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But he appears unaware, for example..." and then gives examples of models which, in their opinion, do, in fact, model data from the real world.
* Even if what they write is true, it's not enough to disprove Chrichton's claim. Read what he wrote: "increasingly, models provide the data." In order for them to show falsehood, they would have to show that the phenomenon he bemoans is actually decreasing in frequency or, at best, happening at the same rate. Merely providing examples in the way they did is not sufficient to make Chrichton's claim false. Strike one.
2. Chricton claims, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?"
- RealClimate.org droops to mockery and replies, "Crichton then goes on to make the classic error of confusing 'weather' and 'climate'
* RealClimate.org's analysis is as stupid as it is condescending. Again, read what Chrichton wrote! "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead." If "climate," by RealClimate.org's own admission is "what you expect," then that definition is functionally equivalent to a weather prediction. If there be any confusion here, it appears to be coming from RealClimate.org. Strike two.
3. Chrichton claims, "Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them."
- RealClimate.org looks down their nose again and claims, "Again, if Crichton has read the IPCC report, he should be aware of the fact that largely (though admittedly, not completely) independent communities of scientists are involved with..."
* hold on just a minute! If, by RealClimate.org's admission, the communities of science are not completely independent, then how is RealClimate.org so sure that such a phenomenon is not precisely the complaint that Chrichton has? The counterexamples RealClimate.org provides fall outside of that complaint and are, by nature, irrelevent. Strike three.
Is this the best that the "scientists" at RealClimate.org can come up with? Should I expect their writings on the Truth(TM) of Global Warming to be of the same caliber? Anyone who fails to communicate their thoughts without resorting to snotty invective loses huge amounts of credibility with me.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
" All you have to do is get a few well known and respected scientists on board and all the other lemmings will fall in line."
It's hard enough to get a group of five scientists to agree to be in the same damn room at the same time much less this "lemmings" nonsense.
This is silly. A significant majority of anthropogenic climate forcing is due to CO2 produced directly by burning fossil fuels.
Indirect contributions to CO2, such as deforestation is very small in comparison. This can be seen by observing that during the 18th and 19th centuries, deforesting large areas of North America caused a measurable, but very small increase in atmospheric CO2. Burning fossil fuels in the 20th century caused a large increase in CO2 levels. There are several ways to tell where the carbon is coming from: isotope analysis shows that most of the additional carbon is old on the scale of the carbon 13 lifetime, so it has not come from organic material formed in the last couple of hundred thousand years. Second, the timing and magnitude of the increase coincides directly with the growth of fossil fuel use and not with any other anthropogenic or natural phenomenon.
Methane gets a lot of press, but it only lives for a decade in the atmosphere before it's oxidized, whereas carbon dioxide has a much longer lifetime (around a century) so it poses a much greater threat.
Even if we consider methane, cow farts are only a small fraction of total anthropogenic methane emissions.
CO2 lives in the atmosphere for a very long time. This is well-known. The more CO2, the longer the lifetime. Currently the lifetime of atmospheric CO2 is about 100 years.
Oceans warm up very slowly (on a timescale of 1000 years, which is determined by deepwater recycling times that can be measured very well.
Putting these two terms together implies that if global warming leads to unacceptable consequences, then by the time we have a clear and unambiguous observation of those consequences (remember that we're rejecting computer models that extrapolate from present trends) we will have set the earth on a course where those consequences will persist for another few centuries.
We don't have unambiguous proof today that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause unacceptable damage to the environment. We can't predict future climates well enough to know with any certainty whether global warming is benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between. We will not know this until we observe what the climate actually does.
Once we observe how the climate does change, it will be too late to alter its trajectory for a century or so, so deciding to wait until there is unambiguous proof is actually another way of deciding to do nothing. We should recognize that choosing to do nothing, choosing to take extreme action, or choosing some intermediate course of action will be done in a state of ignorance and uncertainty.
It may be that choosing to do nothing is the best course of action, but we should be honest that what we're doing is choosing to accept whatever climate change occurs in the next two centuries and not to sell it as though we would have the option of doing something about catastrophic climate change should we observe it 50 years from now.
As to nuclear power, I completely support you on this. Nuclear power is the only technology that has a hope of reducing CO2 emissions significantly in the next 30 years, so we should expand nuclear power as quickly as we can reasonably do.
But I don't see how Kyoto holds back the US at the expense of everyone else. Europe and Japan are committed under Kyoto to cut CO2 emissions more quickly than the US would be if we ratified the treaty.
Telling China that it would have to keep CO2 levels near its 1990 levels sounds good on paper, but even today, China emits only one sixth the amount of CO2 per person as the US does. Do you really think it would be a fair allocation of resources to freeze per-capita CO2 emissions with the US at about 6.5 tons per person per year, Europe at around 2.9 tons per person per year, and China at 1.2 tons per person per year?
Hardly. Tweaked models are still tweaked models. They are still designed to show certain effects, no matter what data they get fed.
But the point is that despite their tweaking they correctly predicted current weather phenomenon, while the other models didn't.
That is the fundamental test of a scientific theory: Does the theory predict the measured data?
Maybe you're missing what they did: They took the models, and used them to predict climate changes. They compared these predictions to measured data. The model using greenhouse gasses as a driver of climate changed matched the data closely, the other models did not. There is only one conclusion you can make, political machinations of the model designers being irrelevent: the greenhouse gas model was accurate, the other models were not.
So yes, it does blow away your criticism of politically motivated "tweaking" invalidating the models. They can tweak the model, they can't tweak the real-world data that their model was used to predict. Maybe Newton "tweaked" his theory because he wasn't sure of it. It still perfectly predicts planetary motion.
It's clear you want to dismiss these results. If you want to, a better way to do it would be to say that the paper has not yet been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. That's my main criticism -- they've ran to the press before their results were analyzed, and even if the paper stands up this can still be damaging.
And don't forget that this "greenhouse warming" causes cloud formation -- and the albedo of clouds is significantly less than that of the ground.
You're assuming the delta in light reflected would be greater than the delta in heat retained. I won't say with assurance that it's either, but I'll note that the coldest days of January in Michigan are the few without clouds.
If we weren't here, we couldn't have caused it, and if it happened before when we didn't cause it, there is no reason to believe we are causing it now.
That's fallacious reasoning. Fires existed before man, therefore man has started no fires?
The reason to suspect man is not because climate change is unique, because it isn't. The reason to suspect man is because the massive release of greenhouse gasses caused by industrialization is unique.
Plenty of fires have been caused by lightning. When you see a field with a charred box of fireworks in the middle, suspecting human interaction instead of assuming lightning is prudent.
The enemies of Democracy are
These analyses are based on detailed models of the atmosphere, and those most certainly take into account the different contributions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases. So, scientists can very much distinguish which gases are primarily responsible for causing global warming.
If cow farts were responsible for global warming, Kyoto would be a treaty on cow farts. Furthermore, methane has a short half life in the atmosphere, that would be really swell. Likewise, if deforestation were responsible for global warming, all the more reason to stop deforestation.
Unfortunatly for everybody concerned, it's easy to tell that cow farts are not the primary cause of global warming, CO2 is. CO2 has a long atmospheric half life, which means that we will have to live with the consequences of our stupidity for centuries.
In fact, what climate models really show is that other human activity (e.g., particulate emissions) has so far probably masked the full extent of global warming, so that things may actually already be further advanced than they appear based on our actual climate measurements. (And, in case you are wondering, we can't continue activities contributing to this masking effect because it has been killing huge numbers of people already.)
While I do consider myself an environmentalist, I am cautious about using the phrase "Carbon Dioxide increases cause global warming." In fact, so cautious that I instead use the phrase "Carbon Dioxide is correlated to global warming."
While there is a model in which carbon dioxide can lead to global warming, there are also several models in which global warming leads to increases in carbon dioxide levels.
1) Permafrosts thaw, allowing the built up organic matter (of which there is quite a lot of under tundra) to decay rapidly, releasing CO2 and CH4.
2) Increasing the temperature of water will decrease the solubility of gasses in that water, therefore increasing the temperature of the oceans will decrease the solubility of carbon dioxide in them, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
While this sounds like I am saying not to worry about CO2 emissions, it does bring about a third possibility: Both models are right. 1)Greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by humans causes global warming. 2)Global warming releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, leading to... more global warming. Uh oh... we found a potential positive feedback loop in which crossing a certain threshold of greenhouse gas emissions will push us past the point of no return.
Then I like to go along with the idea that messing with something you don't know about ends up with that thing broken. What happens if that thing is essential to your life???
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman