Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

In my opinion it doesn't matter whether you believe that global warming is caused by man and wheter or not it is a threat. It seems that the prudent move is to treat our planet's eco-system with much respect as a delicate balance in which the qualiy of our environment is inseparably entwined. I see no reason to deny any responsibility for the protection of our air and water, if not for ourselves than certainly for our children and their children.

Originally Posted by icedog

In my opinion it doesn't matter whether you believe that global warming is caused by man and wheter or not it is a threat. It seems that the prudent move is to treat our planet's eco-system with much respect as a delicate balance in which the qualiy of our environment is inseparably entwined. I see no reason to deny any responsibility for the protection of our air and water, if not for ourselves than certainly for our children and their children.

So, if the threat is real, is this enough? Do we need to give up coal power? Do we need to ration electricity? Do we need to get rid of 90% of the cars?

Of course we should respect our planet, but what we're being told is that we risk destroying it. It's hard to take that seriously without real numbers.

Originally Posted by ScottS

So, if the threat is real, is this enough? Do we need to give up coal power? Do we need to ration electricity? Do we need to get rid of 90% of the cars?

Of course we should respect our planet, but what we're being told is that we risk destroying it. It's hard to take that seriously without real numbers.

The highest the CO2 concentration has been in the past 800,000 years was around 300 ppm. Before the industrial era it was around 275 ppm. Right now we are at around 385 ppm. Warming due to CO2 became just barely discernable about 1975, and has since risen to around 0.6 degrees C.

The big question relevant to how bad the future will be is the climate's sensitivity: what is the pemperature increase with a doubling of CO2? In other words, how much warmer will it be at around 550 ppm CO2?

The generally accepted range is about 1.5 to 5 degrees C, with the most likely value being 3 degrees C.

Beyond the warming is the idea that, at some point, natural reservoirs of CO2 will add to anthropogenic sources. Earth might reach a "tipping point" where the process runs away a bit and stabilizes at a point higher than just just from anthropogenic factors alone.

Two of the big problems that likely will result (which already have started) are intensification of the hydrologic cycle and acidification of the ocean. Intensification of the hydrologic cycle means wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons. This means flooding and drought. Ocean acidification's effects are just now being studied. They don't really know what will happen, but it will certainly cause a major reorganization of the marine food chain. This could easily mean that fisheries will collapse. These present mainly food supply issues.

Another long-term problem is sea level rise. A temperature increase of a few degrees will raise the levels several feet just due to thermal expansion of all that water. The process takes hundreds of years to complete, but will devastate coastal and low-lying areas.

We would have to work extremely urgently to keep CO2 (from human emissions) below 500 ppm. The amount of technology and infrastructure that would have to be completely redone is staggering. IMO, when you factor in natural feedbacks and lags in human response, a higher peak concentration of CO2 along the lines of 750+ ppm is not unreasonable.

Scott

Originally Posted by beezaur

The highest the CO2 concentration has been in the past 800,000 years was around 300 ppm. Before the industrial era it was around 275 ppm. Right now we are at around 385 ppm. Warming due to CO2 became just barely discernable about 1975, and has since risen to around 0.6 degrees C.

Yeah, I've been a tad curious about that Vostok data. It doesn't seem quite realistic to me that the CO2 just gets locked in and doesn't diffuse through ice over those kind of time periods. I've pulled up a bit on the diffusion of gases through ice, but it really isn't my field and I don't have more than some dabbling time to put into it. In any case, I wonder if its reasonable to be asking if that ice data isn't a bit smoothed out, with the high and low spikes just sort of averaged out. FWIW, I don't think that the folks on the Vostok papers considered this, and I didn't see any physicists or anything like that on the paper.

Edit: For those who can get it, take a peek at Science 6 July 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5834, pp. 28 - 29
DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5834.28a CLIMATE CHANGE:
Another Global Warming Icon Comes Under Attack,

and the associated article its based on, S. E. SCHWARTZ ET AL., NATURE REPORTS: CLIMATE CHANGE, 23-24 (2007)

While the mean of the latest greatest atmospheric models matches the temp observations, the error bars on the model could also make the model produce current temperatures under the level of the 1940's. The original authors asserted much more confidence in that model, but so far as I can tell, have never denied the charges leveled here.

This stuff is tough to reverse search, and now I remember why I stopped trying. This stuff has been cited so many times that is next to impossible to do meaningful citation searches.

Originally Posted by ScottS

Try to follow the debate at Science or Nature--you'll probably get a less biased view.

Be careful reading Science and Nature. It's not that they are more or less biased, but those are the publications of choice when you want something published quickly. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but that does mean it's still in the tentative stage. Nearly any peer-reviewed publication has the same limitations.

You bring up another interesting point (not quoted). Scientists get funding by tying their research into whatever the horror of the moment happens to be. In that sense it's politicized because someone has to approve the grants. That can work both ways. On the one hand, there is pressure to produce results. On the other hand, a negative result is still a result.

For example. Some time ago, the horror of the moment was the Thermohaline circulation shutting down. The idea was proposed by no less than Wally Broecker (also coined the phrase "Global Warming"). Numerous scenarios were proposed, including increased freshwater flow form Greenland. Ultimately the idea didn't stand up to observation and some very intense statistical analysis.

CO2 levels are higher now than any time in nearly the past half-million years. Terrestrial primary productivity is down because of massive deforestation over the past 200 years. Millions of years of CO2 sequestration is being undone in a matter of decades.

There is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. This can be cross checked several ways. First, the Vostok and Greenland ice cores have created a CO2 record going back 400,000 years. As ice gets compacted, it becomes denser, reducing the rate of diffusion. Also, CO2 dissolves in water as carbonic acid. Secondly, sediments accumulate on the ocean bottom and can be dated. The nature of the climate can be deduced from the types and characteristics of biological sediments. Third, the properties of various isotopes of oxygen and nitrogen can yield information about the climate.

Further. Photographs of temperate and subtropical mountain glaciers show they are receding quickly. This has been observed in the Alps, the Cascades of the Pacific Northwest US, Mt. Kilimanjaro, the Himalaya. Warmer water species like the Humboldt squid are being found farther north as the water warms. Glaciers have also been found to be receding in Greenland. Plants are entering their spring growth phases (flowering, budding, etc) on the average of a week earlier every 10-20 years.

With more than 2.6 million Scientists in the USA, the 31000 that signed it; make up less than 0.012% of the the scientific community.
Put another way.
There are more creationists in America than scientists who dispute anthropological influenced climate change.

Originally Posted by heliguy

With more than 2.6 million Scientists in the USA, the 31000 that signed it; make up less than 0.012% of the the scientific community.
Put another way.
There are more creationists in America than scientists who dispute anthropological influenced climate change.

I'm not a respectable scientist, but I know that 31,000 of 2.6 million is 1.2%. I wonder how many others who dispute man-induced climate change haven't signed it?

The greater question is whether humans have damaged this home we call earth. Global warming is only one aspect of the human races footprint. Deforestation, exhaustion of aquifers and destruction of ecosystems is beyond debate. Just this morning I read that Southern Spain is becoming a desert due to poor planning and overpopulation. Each of us should do what he or she can to protect our own habitat.

AdamAnt

Originally Posted by heliguy

With more than 2.6 million Scientists in the USA, the 31000 that signed it . . .

There were not 31,000 scientists who signed it. You just have to have a BS degree to be elligible. Their site discusses medical doctors and DVMs (veterinarians) specifically. Medical doctors and veterinarians have ZERO training in geoscience. Even a Ph.D. does not make one qualified. One of my best friends is a particle physicist who knows virtually nothing about global warming.

It would only be a meaningful petition if the signatures were limited to currently active climate scientists.

One of the lead investigators at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (where the petition originates) did get one of his denialist papers published in a journal -- the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons if memory serves. That's like publishing a medical paper in the Journal of Lawn Mower Repair. OISM itslef has issued a press release distancing itself from the petition project.

The (recently deceased) scientist Frederick Seitz, a well-credentialed physicist and past president of the National Acadamy of Sciences, wrote a letter of support included with the petition. Seitz has also taken part in "debunking" smoking's health effects. In 1989 he was described in an internal Phillip Morris memo as "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." Linky:
Fred Seitz

I have never encountered a petition denying anthropogenic global warming that was in any way valid.

Scott

Originally Posted by beezaur

There were not 31,000 scientists who signed it. You just have to have a BS degree to be elligible. Their site discusses medical doctors and DVMs (veterinarians) specifically. Medical doctors and veterinarians have ZERO training in geoscience. Even a Ph.D. does not make one qualified. One of my best friends is a particle physicist who knows virtually nothing about global warming.

So there really aren't 2.1 million scientists in the U.S. who know something about global warming? I'm shocked. I guess it really is just an elite few who have a handle on it