Global warming deniers, can you also deny ocean acidification?

Yeah, man, that was one of the reasons. An abrupt climate shift might eventually result in increased biodiversity, sure. Over time as new species evolve and fill niches left by species that couldn't adapt to the sudden shift. Have fun waiting around for that.

If you're trying to argue that the costs of climate change are less than the costs of capping Co2 I've already said that's a rational argument. But it doesn't seem like you're doing that, it seems like you're throwing up random points trying to find one that suggests that there is no problem at all, or we have no idea what the impact of climate change will be. Neither of those things are true.

It's not hard, it's just science and costs/benefits.

ironic123 wrote:

It's not hard, it's just science and costs/benefits.

You yourself earlier posted that this is complicated.

I don't think my points are random at all. I'm trying to demonstrate that nobody has any clue what the costs/benefits are. So it's very, very hard to say what to do. And even if we decided to do something about it, enforcement would be nearly impossible, ineffective, unfair, and liberty-denying. If anything, I'd be more willing to discuss what's going to happen when we finally do run out of fossil fuels. I'm way more concerned about that than some chicken-little sky-is-falling discussion about CO2, a harmless gas whose continued addition to the atmosphere has a diminishing effect on temperature.

Can you deny that I do not care?

Troll Yanker wrote:

...Actually, the historical record shows that during times of warm average temps and high CO2 levels, plant and animal life thrived like they never had before. Take a look at the Cambrian period. High temperatures, extremely high C02 (7000ppm at one point, compared to today's paltry 388ppm), and guess what happened? "The Cambrian Explosion" - a period during which most major Phyla appeared and was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms. Yes, an increase in biodiversity.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

A major and sudden change in climate will inevitably reduce biodiversity quite dramatically as species go extinct in decades whereas new species evolve in millennia. Surely this is obvious to you.

So, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years from now there may well be greater biodiversity. But I don't think that will do you (or your great great grand children) much good.

What should be our response to the realities of climate change? I am not certain of many of the specifics. But I would suggest to everyone (folks who think we should shut down all fossil fuel use today as well as folks who think we should ignore the whole thing) that ignoring the science or pretending it is all just a world-wide conspiracy by those dastardly scientists is a really, really bad place to start.

"A little more realism" basically makes the point I'm struggling to make.

"I'm trying to demonstrate that nobody has any clue what the costs/benefits are." Well you're not demonstrating it. We do have an idea of the costs and benefits.

The fact that you still don't believe in anthropogenic climate change after this back and forth is actually really depressing. But if you've made up your mind and no science (or logic) can make you change it I guess there isn't any way to reason with you.

The climate, as a system, is complicated. A rational framework for evaluating climate change shouldn't be.

I am open to being convinced. You still haven't convinced me that we should do something about this supposed problem. You're basically saying that just because there is a chance (as you call it, a non-miniscule chance) that our CO2 emissions could change earth's climate so rapidly as to cause extinctions (possibly even the extinction of humans) that we should take drastic measures such as capping CO2 emissions. The part that I'm not convinced about is how big a chance of catastrophic change there is. The historical evidence of catastrophic change is in events such as volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes, both of which cooled the earth and caused extinctions. How can the world becoming more tropical, even relatively quickly, cause the extinction of man? This outcome seems far preferable to another ice age, if you ask me. By the way, we're due for another ice age beginning in about 10k-12k years. Should we just let that happen, simply because it's natural, or should get a little help from CO2 and possibly offset the impending cooling somewhat? They can't answer these questions with models. It's too complicated. So I can't advocate for drastic action when we truly don't have a clue as to how to make complicated weather and climate predictions. We can't even forecast the next hurricane season correctly, and you expect me to believe climate scientists can tell us whether our CO2 is going to prevent the next ice age? If you think we've already figured all this out, then you're naive.

ironic123, you wrote that there is no way to reason with me, and that no amount of science (or logic) can change my mind. Well I have a question for you.

In 1975, the scientific consensus was that there was dangerous global cooling occurring. Newsweek magazine's April 28th, 1975 issue said:

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view the that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the famines could be catastrophic."

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effect."

"some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, [include] the melting of the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers"

So my question to ironic123: Would you have supported action against this dangerous cooling trend in 1975? From your previous posts, it seems you would have done a cost/benefit. God knows what the outcome of your actions might have been.

Here is the link:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Thanks for the link.

So let me see if I have this right - you are going to compare two things and say that basically they are equivalent (albeit in opposite directions).

Where to start?

1) Source - You cite Newsweek. I don't want to knock this terribly but let's be honest about this - Newsweek is a Pop magazine which sells hysteria, whether it is baseball, Lady GaGa or pop science. Those who say that global warming is real, significant and man caused can cite the vast majority of scientific literature of the last decade.

These are not comparable sources.

If you want to cite Newsweek, here's a link that may interest you:

Yes, global temperatures fell for a few years in the 40s (more so than the 70s) but the notion that this was anything other than a blip (and blips are inevitable) had minimal support in the scientific community. This notion gained popularity among the masses due to misleading press releases like the one you cite. It does make for good reading and increased readership.

2) Progress in human understanding. The ability of scientists to model large, complex systems like the earth has improved about as much as the power of computers has increased. From 1975 to 2010 this is a factor of on the order of 100,000. The science, such as it were, in 1975 was largely observation of temperatures and scratching of heads. There was no ability to model the effect, no understanding of cause and no reasonable prediction of future endurance of the short term trend other than for pop science writers to say, "Gee, things have been cooling down the last few years so they probably will in the future".

3) Length, magnitude and even existence of temperature fluctuations. Temperatures will fluctuate. That's a given. The question is how much, for how long and ultimately, how significant the fluctuation is. The blip cited in the Newsweek article shows a temperature drop of roughly 0.6 F over a time span of roughly 25 years. Even that is exaggerated. The real change was a drop of more like 0.5 F over roughly 15 years (see

). Compare this to a rise of 1.6 F over a period of roughly 100 years (see same graph) and this even including the 40s downward blip. Three times the magnitude over six times the duration. And you think these are of comparable significance?

4) Cause. The blip in the 40s was just that, a blip. Of no significance, with no man-made cause. The century long (and accelerating) rise we are currently seeing has a pretty clear cut and man-made cause. Again, you think these things are comparable?

Finally (since I do not have all night) you seem to advocate the do-nothing response. The inherent problem with that is that the status quo is most definitely NOT do nothing. It is continue to perform a massive chemistry experiment of global scale on a system upon which our species is entirely dependent.

While many advocating such an approach consider themselves to be true blue conservatives, this is most assuredly NOT a conservative approach. It is an extraordinarily radical approach involving cavalierly setting off a chain of events, the end point of which is difficult to predict but, simply by virtue of the human specie and human civilization being adapted to the status quo, is astonishingly dangerous.

At the very least, please throw away the science is nonsense mindset and think more seriously than pointing to a Newsweek article would suggest.

(sorry for the typos - I don't have time to proof - gotta run)

Said better than I, Realism.

Troll no offense but it's almost as if you think this is a matter of blind faith?

"A major and sudden change in climate will inevitably reduce biodiversity quite dramatically as species go extinct in decades whereas new species evolve in millennia. Surely this is obvious to you." wrote A little more realism please.

I wanted to see if you can tell me which animal so obviously evolved in millennia (sic)?

Clell Adams wrote:

"A major and sudden change in climate will inevitably reduce biodiversity quite dramatically as species go extinct in decades whereas new species evolve in millennia. Surely this is obvious to you." wrote A little more realism please.

I wanted to see if you can tell me which animal so obviously evolved in millennia (sic)?

Polar bears diverging from brown bears appears to have taken somewhere on the order of 20 millennia.

Strange question, yours. For the most part new species will take longer than this (at least for large, well known species) which only makes my point stronger.

Or are you one of those fellows who thinks they are clever by pointing out irrelevant typos (which in this case was not even an error)?

Before this thread dies, as I am sure it will, I want to point out that the posters denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change haven't advanced a single decent scientific argument for their position.

As far as I can tell their arguments are: I don't trust Al Gore, I don't trust climatologists, and 10 nit-picky points on the margins (that end up being wrong anyway).

To add to the point re Newsweek. The allegation that there was a consensus in the peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970's that a period of global cooling was imminent has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Maybe we've gotten to the root of the problem, now. The problem, as I now see it, is: We're not a climate scientists (at least, I'm not). I don't personally know any climate scientists. So the only way I get their opinions is by reading them through the filter that is the media. You're now telling me "don't trust Newsweek, instead read such and such". Can you understand why there are so many skeptics? How many people, like me, are not climate scientists and do not know any personally? We have to rely on the media to report accurately and obviously, they often don't.

What is your opinion of History channel? They aired a documentary called "How the Earth was Made". Near the end of it, they briefly addressed the topic of AGW. Basically, they said "Man's CO2 emission can only delay the inevitable ice age that is set to return in 10,000-12,000 years". This was a pretty comforting statement to me. Is this documentary garbage like Newsweek's reports?

How is the average Joe Schmo like me supposed to navigate the confusing world of contradictory media reports on this topic? Seriously, how?

Great post ^. IMHO.

That really is the root of the problem. Not just on the issue of climate change but on all the big topics - tax policy, trade policy, education reform, health care reform...

There is so much misinformation out there, often very well packaged. How does the average citizen make informed judgements? How can we as a society do a better job of making it possible for "non-experts" to make good decisions at the ballot box?

I wish I had the answers.

At any rate, my hat is off to Troll Yanker for nailing the real issue.

Troll Yanker wrote:

Maybe we've gotten to the root of the problem, now...

How is the average Joe Schmo like me supposed to navigate the confusing world of contradictory media reports on this topic? Seriously, how?

I agree, good post. I don’t believe in AGW. I have heard interviews with scientists and activists that have shown AGW idea to be a fraud scientifically. IE- Leaving out important periods of time, using bad math to create the hockey stick graph, periods in the past had far more co2, etc.

The easy answer to the “who to believe problem” is “Follow the Money.” Big foundations and the universities that fund them can shape science and public policy. It is easy to get 1000 scientists to get on board with theory… don’t fund them unless they are congruent with the theory. I am having a hard time believing any science. It has gotten to the point science is used to control people. So many studies are done to serve an agenda. Big Pharma and the FDA are great examples of this.

This issue is part of a bigger problem. I don’t believe mainstream media since they get funding via advertising and foundations that push a specific agenda. I was listening to NPR this morning where a WSJ reporter was telling the anchor TARP was only 700B in total and ~160B was still not paid back. Apparently, Bloomberg had reported the actual figure to be 23T and growing. I saw an article by Fox News dated 12-01 that said OBL was dead. I saw an article in Savannahnow.com where Russians were caught breaking into a nuclear power plant last month yet nothing about the story outside of minor local news. They were released after questioning. Yet there are these bogus terror alerts seemingly right on time with the election. At this point, I don’t know who to believe.

What REALLY pisses me off about this AGW thing and this thread is nobody seems to give sh!t about real pollution. GMO, prescription drugs in the water supplies/rivers/oceans. Depleted Uranium. The 1000s of new chemicals being released into the world. Instead, people are concerned about the stuff plants breath. How about the recent article on the government apology for doing human experiments on an entire population. Does anyone think they have stopped this practice?

Hey guys, good luck with all the global warming, ocean acidification, what-have-you, end of the world scenario shit. Let me know how it goes because I'll be sleeping quite soundly while you scramble about trying to convince people that the world is in dange-uh.

Good luck.

So first it is global warming and they take that off the table because of the coldest winters wev'e seen i quite a while. Then, climate change is brought forth and is completely slammed with the whole climate gate exchange, and copenhagan conference where all the green nuts burnt tremendous amts of CO2 just to get there.

Now, they are throwing ocean acidification on us. Really? Why are they trying so hard to make us believe our energy consumption is turning the world upside down? I think Al Gore must be extremely desparate at this point.

You didn't answer my question. Diverging. Poodles, Bloodhounds, Great Danes, Yorkies - that's diverging (at least using your word). You said evolve. I want to know one animal that you can point to that has evolved from another animal.

I just wanted to make sure if you spelled it incorrectly, I didn't repeat your error. Of which it appears it is not?