3 ms·

Hmm, I don't know much about the science behind global warming but this looks quite convincing, it basically argues that temperature shifts are natural, not man

by Jun8 16y ago

Hmm, I don't know much about the science behind global warming but this looks quite convincing, it basically argues that temperature shifts are natural, not man-made. Anyone care to put some holes in this argument?

jbooth 16y ago
Yeah, here's a giant hole: I don't care what the temperature was in 4000 BC. Right now, the ice caps are melting, and all available science points to CO2 as the reason. Maybe the reason in 4000BC was CO2, maybe it was something else. But right now, the ice caps melting are going to create a whole bunch of problems for us. I also noticed that in this guy's "historical long view" graphs, he omitted the last 30 years so that we don't see a big spike at the end. And they seem to all be normalized differently. Very honest of him. I'm sure he's motivated by pure science and not politics.
- scotch_drinker 16y ago
  Whether that's true or not, do the benefits of stopping the ice caps melting outweigh the negative effects on us for the future? Just because something is going to cause us a whole bunch of problems does not mean the solution will not cause more problems and implementing a solution blindly is likely to be profoundly disappointing in the long run. Every decision must be weighed against the effects of both making it and not making it. I am unconvinced those who say "We should do something to prevent global warming" fully understand what we may be doing to our future in an effort to solve a problem we may not have. On top of that, our political class is probably unable to have the type of discussion required to make that decision anyway.
yread 16y ago
Hmm perhaps that they are looking at a single iceberg core from a single location? I would prefer to trust the satellite observations over everything else. All the other global temperatures estimates are much less accurate. Then again I'm not a climatologist. 97% of climatologists "who have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" there is a human made global warming [1] http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
anorwell 16y ago
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html would be a good place to start reading. Additionally, even if you take the OP article at face value, nothing in it constitutes an argument that current temperature shifts are not man-made. All he's done is shown that there has been natural temperature variability in pre-industrial times. This is clearly not an argument that current warming is not man-made.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Whether or not it's man-made isn't really an interesting question, as far as I can tell. In fact, the only interesting question is what is worse: the effect of climate change, or the cost of trying to avert it. And virtually all discussion of climate change completely ignores that very question.
  - skorgu 16y ago
    The IPCC goes into substantial detail on cost estimates for mitigation, in brief: > Stabilizing CO2 concentrations at around 445 to 535 ppm, limiting the longterm temperature rise to about 3.6 to 5.4°F (2 to 3°C), is estimated to reduce the cumulative growth in global GDP 3 percent by 2030. This is equivalent to only a 0.12 percent reduction in annual growth rate of GDP. More importantly 'what it would cost' is pernicious to calculate. Especially when 5% of global GDP could conceivably be a huge number of people: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-destroy-almost-half-planet-for.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-destroy-almost...
jhpriestley 16y ago
Shows one data set. Does not detail any methodological assumptions used to interpret that data set. Does not elaborate or respond to contrary views. Not science.

by Jun8 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

Yeah, here's a giant hole: I don't care what the temperature was in 4000 BC. Right now, the ice caps are melting, and all available science points to CO2 as the reason. Maybe the reason in 4000BC was CO2, maybe it was something else. But right now, the ice caps melting are going to create a whole bunch of problems for us. I also noticed that in this guy's "historical long view" graphs, he omitted the last 30 years so that we don't see a big spike at the end. And they seem to all be normalized differently. Very honest of him. I'm sure he's motivated by pure science and not politics.

scotch_drinker 16y ago
Whether that's true or not, do the benefits of stopping the ice caps melting outweigh the negative effects on us for the future? Just because something is going to cause us a whole bunch of problems does not mean the solution will not cause more problems and implementing a solution blindly is likely to be profoundly disappointing in the long run. Every decision must be weighed against the effects of both making it and not making it. I am unconvinced those who say "We should do something to prevent global warming" fully understand what we may be doing to our future in an effort to solve a problem we may not have. On top of that, our political class is probably unable to have the type of discussion required to make that decision anyway.

yread 16y ago

Hmm perhaps that they are looking at a single iceberg core from a single location? I would prefer to trust the satellite observations over everything else. All the other global temperatures estimates are much less accurate. Then again I'm not a climatologist. 97% of climatologists "who have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" there is a human made global warming [1] http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

anorwell 16y ago

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html would be a good place to start reading. Additionally, even if you take the OP article at face value, nothing in it constitutes an argument that current temperature shifts are not man-made. All he's done is shown that there has been natural temperature variability in pre-industrial times. This is clearly not an argument that current warming is not man-made.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Whether or not it's man-made isn't really an interesting question, as far as I can tell. In fact, the only interesting question is what is worse: the effect of climate change, or the cost of trying to avert it. And virtually all discussion of climate change completely ignores that very question.
- skorgu 16y ago
  The IPCC goes into substantial detail on cost estimates for mitigation, in brief: > Stabilizing CO2 concentrations at around 445 to 535 ppm, limiting the longterm temperature rise to about 3.6 to 5.4°F (2 to 3°C), is estimated to reduce the cumulative growth in global GDP 3 percent by 2030. This is equivalent to only a 0.12 percent reduction in annual growth rate of GDP. More importantly 'what it would cost' is pernicious to calculate. Especially when 5% of global GDP could conceivably be a huge number of people: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-destroy-almost-half-planet-for.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-destroy-almost...

jhpriestley 16y ago

Shows one data set. Does not detail any methodological assumptions used to interpret that data set. Does not elaborate or respond to contrary views. Not science.