Climate myths

[Bobby]

I thought this gem from New Scientist deserves a topic. A detailed exploration of global warming, with 26 climate myths debunked.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

I'd like to see the sceptics have a go at debunking some of this.

[VillagePlank]

Great link, there.

[johnholmes]

yes some good links for people to read up on.

I'll bet some sceptic has a go at the links though

[Devonian]

Yup, it's really very good.

Also a link to a neat explaination of the 'weather is chaotic, so you can't predict climate' nonsense - http://www.clivar.org/science/magnets.php

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you Magpie!

I too would like to hear the 'sceptics' debunking all 26 of them with resorting either to personal beliefs or purposely distorted science.

P.S. Thanks Devonian!

Edited May 17, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

Debunking the 26 "myths" is actually a simple logical exercise.

The recent warming is either largely human-caused or not. No real proof has been offered that it is, and I for one don't believe that it is.

It follows from that assumption that if the warming is natural, all the other "myths" are in fact myths, without the " " required.

Some of the myths are entirely a matter of opinion, rather than provable fact. For example, there is one that states that global warming will be beneficial where some people live. Just because it will not be beneficial where other people live does not change the truth or falsehood of that fact, which is indeed a perception to which any individual is duly entitled.

The world has always been like that -- the circumstances of one part of the world may be unfavourable at the same time that they are favourable elsewhere.

I'm hoping that the natural cycle of warming runs its course soon and that significant cooling shows up in many places where the global warming lobby tells us it cannot happen any longer. This will not only place the 26 "myths" in a more appropriate context, it will provide massive entertainment for those of us who have been ridiculed for dissenting against the new state religion of global warming, and that's no myth either.

[johnholmes]

welcome Roger, I thought you might have a comment. Your position is well know but at least you do not get involved in some of the personal insults chucked around on this site and in particular about GW or AGW.

I am not a total believer myself but suspect that we(humans) have had rather more to do with the last 150 years than any 'natural' warming would have had if we had not been around. Especially if we had not used up so much of the carbon deposits.

We can all agree to differ or agree but hopefully without rancour as you have shown it possible to do.

[parmenides3]

Debunking the 26 "myths" is actually a simple logical exercise.

The recent warming is either largely human-caused or not. No real proof has been offered that it is, and I for one don't believe that it is.

It follows from that assumption that if the warming is natural, all the other "myths" are in fact myths, without the " " required.

Some of the myths are entirely a matter of opinion, rather than provable fact. For example, there is one that states that global warming will be beneficial where some people live. Just because it will not be beneficial where other people live does not change the truth or falsehood of that fact, which is indeed a perception to which any individual is duly entitled.

The world has always been like that -- the circumstances of one part of the world may be unfavourable at the same time that they are favourable elsewhere.

I'm hoping that the natural cycle of warming runs its course soon and that significant cooling shows up in many places where the global warming lobby tells us it cannot happen any longer. This will not only place the 26 "myths" in a more appropriate context, it will provide massive entertainment for those of us who have been ridiculed for dissenting against the new state religion of global warming, and that's no myth either.

Roger, I understand you position, but when you say 'no real proof has been offered that it is', I wonder what you make of this, for example: http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/facult...ing_inpress.pdf

This paper appears to be establishing that the recent warming is anthropogenic in origin. It offers evidence and calculation to support this claim. Does this not count as 'proof'? If it does not, what would count as 'proof'? Obviously, if recent warming weren't anthro in origin, then some of the claims made against it would, ipso facto, be true.

You also end by mentioning the 'natural cycle of warming'; all the evidence I have read suggests that there are no 'natural' phenomena which can account for the recent warming, except in a small part. If the warming were natural, it might be worrying, but it wouldn't be a problem in the same way that artifical warming is.

Regards,

:)P

[Bobby]

Debunking the 26 "myths" is actually a simple logical exercise.

The recent warming is either largely human-caused or not. No real proof has been offered that it is, and I for one don't believe that it is.

It follows from that assumption that if the warming is natural, all the other "myths" are in fact myths, without the " " required.

Some of the myths are entirely a matter of opinion, rather than provable fact. For example, there is one that states that global warming will be beneficial where some people live. Just because it will not be beneficial where other people live does not change the truth or falsehood of that fact, which is indeed a perception to which any individual is duly entitled.

The world has always been like that -- the circumstances of one part of the world may be unfavourable at the same time that they are favourable elsewhere.

I'm hoping that the natural cycle of warming runs its course soon and that significant cooling shows up in many places where the global warming lobby tells us it cannot happen any longer. This will not only place the 26 "myths" in a more appropriate context, it will provide massive entertainment for those of us who have been ridiculed for dissenting against the new state religion of global warming, and that's no myth either.

Fair enough... but when do you expect this cool downt to occur? Safe to say there doesn't seem to be any sign of it at the moment.

I'm not part of a lobby by the way, but believe in AGW.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Magpie

[Devonian]

I liked this entry http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11638 which explains the myth about natural CO2 emissions dwarfing human ones. They do, but natural CO2 sinks used to balance natural CO2 emissions - now, thanks to us, they're out of balance and CO2 in increasing - shown graphically here

[Gray-Wolf]

The thing that tends to agitate me is the fact that the evidence of 'rapid climate shift' continues to amass whilst the sceptics argue over the mechanics of change!!!

I can accept that the warming that we have witnessed may be disputable as per 'contributions percentage influence ' to the melting pot, but the pot still melts,,,,,

Surely it is better to focus on what occurred under similar regimes and set contingencies to deal with such, if it should come to pass, with that knowledge?

We must be beyond the point where any 'rational minded person' cannot spot a trend in our recent climate and, given as it takes 'a heck of a push' to overcome climates natural resistance to change ('cold eventually balances out warmth' type of thing).

The resistance of any '20yr cycle' to redress the recent growth in continued warming over the past 2 'cycles' (increase in 'average' warmth [20yr cycle on 20yr cycle]) coupled with our recent understanding (over the same time period) of the climate system and it's drivers leave me with no doubt that we face Globally 'unsettling times'.

[biffvernon]

I liked this entry http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11638 which explains the myth about natural CO2 emissions dwarfing human ones. They do, but natural CO2 sinks used to balance natural CO2 emissions - now, thanks to us, they're out of balance and CO2 in increasing - shown graphically here

And emphasised by this morning's report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6665147.stm bringing us bad news about carbon sinks in the Southern Ocean.

Getting back to the New Scientist article that started this thread, this week's issue carries a letter from Martin Durkin. I guess the NS editor must have thought it worthwhile publishing, not because it says anything useful, but because it shows what complete drivel the contrarians come up with. The editor appends a helpful note directing readers to the article further on in the magazine, upon which the OP's link is based.

[noggin]

With regard to the myth "It's the Sun wot's doin' it", I have read the "debunking" but it has not made me change my stance.

Re the Sun emitting a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and having steadily brightened ever since with Earth having been warmer today than for most of the past 4 billion years:

1) how can anybody seriously claim to have such knowledge over such a timescale and even if it were possible, how can anyone conclude that something is now amiss (ie. man is responsible for GW) when they are talking of a temperature rise for a period of, what, a few years? Even if they are talking of decades rather than years, the difference between a decade and 4 billion years is so HUGE that to use the two for comparison is, in my view, like comparing chalk and cheese.

2) The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%, based on reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century. Oh, fine.....mess around with the figures, it's a big reduction that. A reanalysis too. Strikes me that this report has done quite a bit of messing around with figures. And if this is considered to be fine by some, that the scientists are finding out more and more all the time and are able to come to better conclusions, then just remember that they could find out some more stuff and find that they are totally wrong rather than just 50% wrong.

I am stopping at this point as my keyboard is temperamental and I could lose everything. Will be back shortly though, I hope!

....and a jolly "good morning" to one and all...those with whom I agree and those with whom I don't!

[noggin]

Whilst I think of it, just quickly, re theories changing.....it happens everywhere and all the time. A few examples:

1) diet....we are always being fed (excuse the pun) different advice about what is or is not good for us to eat and drink.

2) difficult subject, this, but it does demonstrate the point.....how to lay your baby down to reduce the risk of cot death

3) gardening....how to prune your roses. It used to be pruning with sharp secateurs to an outward facing bud.....it has now been proved that you can have a good old go at them with a chainsaw and they'll flower just as well.

My point here is that GW being caused by man is just the current theory and that those theorists themselves have been shown to change what they previously thought. But we are expected to accept that the latest theory is the right one.....I find that a bit blinkered to be honest. I could have worded it much more strongly but we are being civilised and polite, are we not?!

[Essan]

The one thing my fellow 'sceptics' (and of course the more vocal 'deniers') have still failed to come up with is one single, logical, reason why we shouldn't do most of the things being suggested to combat global warming. One can only assume that it's in their interests for us to remain in the dark ages, with inadequate infrastructures, and reliant on Russia for heat in winter and on Iran for running our cars ...... Conspiracy theory anyone?

(Meanwhile, the 'believers', of course, remain blind to the other aspects of anthropogenic climate change, especially those caused primarily by third world countries. The real inconvenient truth .... Oh, and of course also that covering remote mountain areas and moors with roads, concrete platforms, turbines and pylons won't actually protect them. Nor solve a single problem. Although it will make certain people very rich)

[Gray-Wolf]

The whole thing (GW,AGW) is a 'time will tell' problem. In the fullness of time we will have our answers both to the extent of the warming and it's primary driver.

Many folk seem reassured that the 'problems' it will bring will be for our children/grandchildren to live and deal with and so are not greatly motivated (as if their own life/continuance depended upon it) and this is starting to look like a big mistake.

Time and again we are treated to 'refinements' to the climate models as more and more data amasses and time and time again effects are shown to be greater than first thought and timescales are way,way shorter than was originally thought. Areas supposedly beyond the reach of the warming are now showing the effects of it and the probability of 'Rapid climate adjustment' in fits and starts gains adherents (again as past evidence of change is analysed).

The CO2 sink article, in the posts above, brings forward by 40yrs where we are in relation to the 'models' (our children /grandchildren problem now becomes our problem) and so it is with much of the work on 'high latitude' changes.

Very soon their will be no time for bickering as the impacts of rapid climate shift affects the lifestyles we seem so fond of.

[Bobby]

Blimey, I expected to see someone having a go at debunking some of those 26 myths but it's another thread of personal jibes and so on. Can some of the skeptics have a go at refuting one of those myths? Would be good to get some debate going about the science.

1) how can anybody seriously claim to have such knowledge over such a timescale and even if it were possible, how can anyone conclude that something is now amiss (ie. man is responsible for GW) when they are talking of a temperature rise for a period of, what, a few years? Even if they are talking of decades rather than years, the difference between a decade and 4 billion years is so HUGE that to use the two for comparison is, in my view, like comparing chalk and cheese.

This is simple physics. A star will be brighten, reach a peak (usually the middle point of it's life) and then fade away as it uses more and more if it's fuel. It's the same for all stars.

[Devonian]

The one thing my fellow 'sceptics' (and of course the more vocal 'deniers') have still failed to come up with is one single, logical, reason why we shouldn't do most of the things being suggested to combat global warming. One can only assume that it's in their interests for us to remain in the dark ages, with inadequate infrastructures, and reliant on Russia for heat in winter and on Iran for running our cars ...... Conspiracy theory anyone?

(Meanwhile, the 'believers', of course, remain blind to the other aspects of anthropogenic climate change, especially those caused primarily by third world countries. The real inconvenient truth .... Oh, and of course also that covering remote mountain areas and moors with roads, concrete platforms, turbines and pylons won't actually protect them. Nor solve a single problem. Although it will make certain people very rich)

You keep saying this, Andy, but I can't think of a 'believer' who denies there aren't multiple sources of anthropogenic climate change. Otoh, I can't think of a 'believer' who denies the pivotal role of CO2. Fair comment?

[Essan]

You keep saying this, Andy, but I can't think of a 'believer' who denies there aren't multiple sources of anthropogenic climate change. Otoh, I can't think of a 'believer' who denies the pivotal role of CO2. Fair comment?

They might not deny it, but neither do they publicaly state it. How many times has Tony Blair, when discussion global warming, commented that Indonesia produce 5 times as much CO2 per year as the UK purely through deforestation? When has he said it's a priority to tackle?

How often does the Independent - or any other media outlet - go on about how using palm oil products indirectly causes more global warming that every car, house, factory, power station etc in the UK put together?

It's an inconvenience truth. They know it, but it's more politically correct to concentrate on carbon emission from developed nations.

Meanwhile, the third world will suffer more and more and more because we refuse to act to help stop them destroy their environment.

[Devonian]

They might not deny it, but neither do they publicaly state it. How many times has Tony Blair, when discussion global warming, commented that Indonesia produce 5 times as much CO2 per year as the UK purely through deforestation? When has he said it's a priority to tackle?

How often does the Independent - or any other media outlet - go on about how using palm oil products indirectly causes more global warming that every car, house, factory, power station etc in the UK put together?

It's an inconvenience truth. They know it, but it's more politically correct to concentrate on carbon emission from developed nations.

Meanwhile, the third world will suffer more and more and more because we refuse to act to help stop them destroy their environment.

Ahh, just media and politicans then Andy? Fair enough, they don't know what scientist do, but I expect the better ones know the problem that, for instance, palm oil production is causing.

But here and in another place we 'believers' try to talk science. - and we know about palm oil, deforestation and the rest.

Your last line describes part of the problem. Problem is we're not just not helping the third world, we're doing nowt serious about anything

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

People know my stance, I am one side of the fence [non AGW] looking over to the other......watching. I have read some very good arguments from both sides and P3 has presented many. RJS has also produced very good food for thought and his theory, having read it [still digesting], I find something I believe has 'real' substance to it in relation to influence on our planet's climactic/atmospheric set up.

Without going into depth we approach Gleissberg minima 2030? first peak, cosmic flux etc. and should be cooling well before then [possibly noticeable from 2012-2015....so not long to go now before a big test is passed or failed IMO

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

They might not deny it, but neither do they publicaly state it. How many times has Tony Blair, when discussion global warming, commented that Indonesia produce 5 times as much CO2 per year as the UK purely through deforestation? When has he said it's a priority to tackle?

A good point well made Essan! We should all be mindful of the impact we in the west had by deforresting our lands over the past 8,000yrs and not merely point the finger at other peoples who are engaged in the same.

In the period 1970-1985 we in Britain reduced our existing 'trees ' by 20% by grubbing out hedgerows (for both 'convenience' as wire doesn't take as much maintaining as wood and to allow a more U.S. style of extensive agriculture)

None of the developoing world reduced it's forrest by such a percentage over the same period.

AGW can be traced back to the first folk to 'slash and burn' to enhance their hunting (NW Australia 40 thousand years ago or our own Flagg Fen 8 thousand years ago) and not just to the 'post industrial revolution' world.

[Essan]

Peter, I stand corrected!

How did I miss this!

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/...icle2539349.ece

Someone's listening to me

[Michael Winston]

Blimey, I expected to see someone having a go at debunking some of those 26 myths but it's another thread of personal jibes and so on. Can some of the skeptics have a go at refuting one of those myths?

Sorry, Magpie, I can't debunk anything - I'm not knowledgeable enough and I don't have a fixed opinion on the issue, other than to say I have a very open mind. However, I find it interesting that some of the contributors from the New Scientist don't appear to have referred to each other's work; either that, or a it's a case of editorial overload. If I may, I'd like to draw peoples' attention to the following quotes from four of the articles and their apparent contradictory nature*:

The Cooling After 1940..''In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C''

Human C02 Emissions Are Too Tiny To Matter ..''Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true.''

Its Been Far Warmer In The Past...''The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits''.

Mars and Pluto Are Warming Too...''Their climates (Mars and Pluto) will be affected by local factors such as orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic eruptions.''

Granted, the first quote refers to aerosols but if I appear confused by the wealth of information I hope you'll understand why. Discrepancies like this, no matter how small or misunderstood (particularly by me!), will, I fear, be jumped upon by both camps and used as a stick to beat each other with. A pity, as there appears to be a great deal to be concerned about.

A fascinating set of articles, Magpie, and much to read and think about over the weekend.

Many thanks,

Kind regards,

Mike.

( A jibe-free NW member!)

* There's no need to post any criticisms of this post, particularly about my 'bad science', lack of knowledge and analytical shortcomings - I'm my own sternest critic!

[PersianPaladin]

AGW can be traced back to the first folk to 'slash and burn' to enhance their hunting (NW Australia 40 thousand years ago or our own Flagg Fen 8 thousand years ago) and not just to the 'post industrial revolution' world.

Slash and burn agriculture was practiced by small tribes in a way which allowed the area of forest to recover. Practices of this nature were not extensive enough to cause an imbalance in environmental CO2 levels apart from perhaps very local areas. Areas of TRF used for slash and burn amongst most Indian peoples' in Brazil, for example, are small and there are enough seedlings from the enclosed surrounding forest to be able to reach the soil. The ash and the carbon output and its proximity to immediate forest is likely to be contained within that area and reabsorbed upon regrowth. Whereas the modern day practices of defforestation leaves large areas of land far away from the virgin forest; and chances of regrowth and carbon re-utilisation by mature trees is zero. The local environment and biome is transformed into one where the heat and carbon flux promotes greater diurnal temp contrasts and carbon output into the atmosphere.

Edited May 18, 2007 by PersianPaladin