I find it debatable that global warming is anthropogynesic. I agree that there is an increase in average temperatures, and there is an increase in human emissions of carbon-containing products. But global warming and global cooling is a frequent event if you think throughout the history of the earth. And there is a possibility that the decrease in average temperature and the decrease in the nitrogen layer is just part of another such cycle. To accurately assess the human impact, you need to calculate the exact amount of CO2 emissions from human and non-human causes over at least a few decades and see what the correlations are with temperature.

There is an opinion that in the academic environment global warming is a trendy hot topic for which large grants are allocated, which is why there are more and more scientists who are interested in this topic only from one side, and less and less opposing voices are heard.

But I don't really want to discuss this particular aspect, let's say it's not just a coincidence, and for the sake of simplicity I can just agree that global warming is man-made.

And I'm more interested in understanding why is global warming a bad thing?

Global warming means a increase in average temperature, the summer time will increase turning the earth into a greenhouse and as a consequence a greening of the planet, more forests, more plants. More acceptable climate for flora and fauna. A rise in temperature doesn't automatically turn everything into a desert, it's the lack of moisture that turns everything into a desert. And with as much water as there is on earth, it is impossible for the entire earth to turn into a desert like Mars. Global flood due to melting glaciers? Even if the average ocean level rises it will cause a backlash. Because the ocean is a giant cooling system for the earth and more water means more cooling. And in 100 years of industrialisation we don't see a significant rise in water levels.

In addition, the melting of even all glaciers will not lead to the loss of all land. Yes, we may lose some part of the land off the coast. But the majority of glaciers are already in water or replacing water, so most of the water from them will fill the same voids from which they melted. And even if there is an increase in water levels, it will not happen suddenly. People will be able to move to regions further from the coast.

In my opinion, what is truly worth worrying about for humanity is global cooling, what if glaciers grow throughout the planet. Some scientists agree that this is possible and that this is part of the already existing theory of earth temperature cycles. Imagine a glacier all over the earth, plants and animals are extinct, there is no food, how to survive?

it's worth noting that I created this thread because of a claim made by one of the forum members, and I'm waiting for his arguments. And yes, I sometimes have nothing to do, so I write something on the forums, just for the sake of interesting discussions.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

But you have every chance of dying from the causes of global warming before an AI decides on its own to crush you like an ant.

I invested my time in this subject for about 10 years, from 2009 until the outbreak of the Covid pandemic. It's not a simple true/false dichotomy, and there are very few simplistic statements of truth that can be made about the topic at all.

The simplest and most broadly unequivocal statement that I believe can be made is that the state of the science of climate change is so deficient, and its integrity so grossly compromised, that NO definitive true/false conclusion about the cause or extent of global warming is possible.

This failure in science and the abandonment of the Enlightenment (known as "Post Normal"), I believe, facilitated the creation of the non-theistic religion of global warming, with its faithful manifesting EVERY metric you will find in a dictionary definition of a religious cult.

So, with that all said and now put aside, to your question whether we are threatened by "global cooling", the geological record is clear: Yes. We are in an interglacial period now, which started around 11,000 years ago, and which is, probabilistically speaking, due to end soon. The earth's natural state over its history has been glacial - more ice than water - by a factor of about 10 and there is no sound scientifically literate reason to believe we have changed, or can change, that pattern in nature.

Quote from SamH :

I invested my time in this subject for about 10 years..

It's very interesting, especially if you've studied it for so long. And I understand that it’s difficult to say anything for sure but I'm interested to know your opinion. If there are any real threats from "global warming", to people and nature? Or is it just a big bogeyman, then what do you think it's for?

Quote from SamH :

So, with that all said and now put aside, to your question whether we are threatened by "global cooling", the geological record is clear: Yes. We are in an interglacial period now, which started around 11,000 years ago, and which is, probabilistically speaking, due to end soon. The earth's natural state over its history has been glacial - more ice than water - by a factor of about 10 and there is no sound scientifically literate reason to believe we have changed, or can change, that pattern in nature.

Yeah, that's just what I've heard from some scientists. I've also heard that it's strongly influenced by various wind cyclones and ocean currents. And it's very difficult to predict when the next freeze-up will occur, and if the cyclones and currents change in a certain way, the global freeze-up can happen quite abruptly, and the glaciers can start moving rapidly. Interesting opinion on your account. I'm interested in your opinion on this.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

It's very interesting, especially if you've studied it for so long. And I understand that it’s difficult to say anything for sure but I'm interested to know your opinion. If there are any real threats from "global warming", to people and nature? Or is it just a big bogeyman, then what do you think it's for?

I really want to answer in a way which is useful, informative and helpful, but most importantly does not open the door to misunderstanding, presumption/assumption or projection. My opinion has no value, because it is just my opinion. It isn't data, it's only anecdote. That said, my opinion is derived from a long process of studying scientific papers and associated datasets/statistical analyses. It took 10 years because: a) the knowledge landscape changed massively over time, as new data became available; b) access to scientific knowledge has become increasingly moderated and contrary views obfuscated (in breach of scientific standards); c) I am not that smart, particularly in statistics and it often takes me longer to sufficiently understand and internalise some (okay, many) concepts and methodologies.

I am confident that humans do have an impact on the climate, primarily through land usage, secondarily through pollution (I exclude CO2 which is NOT a pollutant). I do not believe that there is enough evidence (actually, not enough *good science*) to support the claim that the anthropogenic component of climate change is significant, relative to natural variability.

The data that we have does not support any claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and the best data suggests the opposite. Every claim of catastrophe from climate science to date is derived from computer projections based on generated data, not real data (a model's output is not data, it is a demonstration/exploration/visualisation of a hypothesis and nothing more) or is extrapolated from short-term data to draw long-term conclusions. As the statistician George Box said, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

So, do I think it's just a big bogeyman? I do, yes. "Cui Bono", or "Who Benefits"? I don't know the answer, but I think a lot of money can be, and has been, made from JUST THE BELIEF that the threat is real. An inordinate transfer of wealth has happened, and is happening, in the name of preventing global warming. That transfer has been in only one direction - upwards. That said, I'm open to the possibility that this was all just a misunderstanding. I don't think that's likely though.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Yeah, that's just what I've heard from some scientists. I've also heard that it's strongly influenced by various wind cyclones and ocean currents. And it's very difficult to predict when the next freeze-up will occur, and if the cyclones and currents change in a certain way, the global freeze-up can happen quite abruptly, and the glaciers can start moving rapidly. Interesting opinion on your account. I'm interested in your opinion on this.

There are a substantial number of cycles that we have identified, from just a few years to many centuries long, but I think we're confident that there are still many more to discover. These cycles interact with each other in turbulent ways which are impossible to predict, yet are key to our understanding. You might be familiar with Navier-Stokes equations. I found learning about them very helpful in appreciating the complexities involved in climate predictions, and just how inadequate the field of climate science is to the task.

As for the "global freeze", I think we probably do need to look to the Milankovich cycles for the answer. But again, even applying our best knowledge and understanding, our best guess could be many thousands of years wide of the mark. Unfortunately I don't think "Global Warming" and "Global Freezing" are so directly connected in a causal sense, and more global warming is unlikely to delay or prevent glaciation when it decides it's time to visit us again. Alternatively, think of it this way.. a dog wags its tail when it's happy to see you. But you wagging a dog's tail is not necessarily going to make that dog happy.

Quote from SamH :

I really want to answer in a way which is useful...

This is an interesting and informative commentary, really makes you think, thanks for your time.

Global warming..... I think is definitely happening. I like History, especially local history. I read an except from journal of a Confederate Naval Captain from our civil war. He was commenting on how boat traffic was hampered by Ice sheets coming from inland rivers and into the bay in the area I live. And apparently this was a regular occurrence in the winter a 150 years ago. I have NEVER seen anything like that at all. And with the exception of a couple of cold snaps, we might get two or three freezing days a year here. As far as Man caused? No. I do think we're helping it along though. I went to an observatory once. They really can't use it too much due to light pollution. They had these photos taken by satellite over a period of 20 - 25 years showing light from the planet surface at night it increased a whole lot over the years. Think of all the energy generated to make those lights. That's heat at night time when night time is supposed to dissipate heat. then think about all those cities and all that concrete and how concrete deals with heat. I don't know much about greenhouse gasses or what the so-called experts say. This is just stuff I stumbled upon that really hadn't had anything to do with climate change in and of itself. But it is how I came to that conclusion.

As a scientist, I say to you - global warming is real and it's man made, due to releasing of way too many quantites of green house gases in the atmosphere that stay traped there. Some estimates show that even if we completely stop emissions of all green house gases right now, the Earth would still need 50-100 years to recover on its own. So we are very much fked.

Quote from rane_nbg :

As a scientist, I say to you - global warming is real and it's man made, due to releasing of way too many quantites of green house gases in the atmosphere that stay traped there. Some estimates show that even if we completely stop emissions of all green house gases right now, the Earth would still need 50-100 years to recover on its own. So we are very much fked.

That's interesting. If I found your profile correctly, global warming was not your area of study. But it's not that important. What is important is the reasoning behind your statements.

Quote from rane_nbg :

Some estimates show that even if we completely stop emissions of all green house gases right now, the Earth would still need 50-100 years to recover on its own. So we are very much fked.

What is this based on? And why "we fked"? What if we don't stop making greenhouse gas emissions, where will it lead?

As I said above I don't see anything terrible for people or nature, and I have described my reasoning on this, but maybe I am wrong, and I'm willing to admit that with good counterarguments. I'm interested to know what scenarios of increasing greenhouse gases can lead us to.

Yes, that's my profile. I'm not in that field, you're correct. However, you can have a look, we have a joint papers with company Eaton, they produce big switchgears in energy production industry. Our project was on finding and inspecting suitable insulation gas replacement. At the moment SF6 (sulfurhexafluoride) is used world wide since 1940 and it's a strong greenhouse gas with a GWP (global warming potential) of 23.5k, where CO2 has 1. There was a legislative that put a ban on usage of SF6 by the end of 2025. Even though this is a bit of politics and there's no real danger of it due to much much smaller released quantities in comparison to how much CO2 is being released.

I say we're fked because an alarmingly big number of politicians who can make a change are not recognizing this as a warning sign.

Consequences, well, the scenarios are pretty much like apocalipse movies. I'll try to dig out a youtube video on this topic.
https://youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo?si=SVMNj5_h5cWvStGU

On the question of global warming and its consequences, individual speculations are of little relevance. Just stick to the facts.
Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years.100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions. There is no study of real scientific significance which contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective.

(for the sceptics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Global warming is proven.
Its anthropogenic cause is demonstrated.
The direct consequences of global warming are observable and measurable.
The nature and speed of current warming have nothing in common with previous climate variations and natural cycles.
The global surface temperature has increased more rapidly since 1970 than in any other 50-year period in the last 2000 years (at least).
CO2 and methane concentrations have increased more between 1750 and today than for 800 000 years before.
Ice melt has increased by 65% in the last 30 years
Sea levels have risen by more than 20 cm on average since the beginning of the 20th century, and their temperature is higher than ever before, causing, among other things, anoxia in oceans and rivers.
Etc.Etc.Etc.

The list of proven consequences of global warming is already impossible to make or keep up to date. Its consequences are exponential and disrupt and amplify all natural phenomena.The situation has deteriorated considerably since this video was posted. In 2022, the measured average temperature increase is already around 1.15 degrees. The 1.5° hoped for 2,100 will once in a while be exceeded by 2026.

The climate models used for short- and medium-term projections are constantly updated and improved. They are relatively reliable. Those from the 2000s had, for example, very well described the climate from the years 2000 to 2020. They now predict an increase of 3° to 4.8° by the end of the century. European political leaders are already talking very openly about warming of more than 4° by the end of the century.

Natural disasters fueled by climate change have already displaced tens of millions of people around the world. In terms of biodiversity, the sixth mass extinction began more than a decade ago.

Global warming is not a belief but a reality with scientifically proven consequences. The world of tomorrow has absolutely no chance of resembling a pretty little green and resilient greenhouse. And nothing is being done to slow the phenomenon.

If i can allow myself a personal opinion here: nothing will be done.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Quote from SamH :

With 30 years younger, maybe ?

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

With 30 years younger, maybe ?

I can help with that!

Cults be cult-like.

Quote from SamH :

I can help with that!

Cults be cult-like.

Nothing can help. But hope keeps us alive.
Are the 43 million children displaced by global warming between 2016 and 2021 also under the influence of a sect? What is the name of this sect weirdness that you're alone in?

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/weather-related-disasters-led-431-million-displacements-children-over-six-years

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

On the question of global warming and its consequences, individual speculations are of little relevance. Just stick to the facts.

This is how I feel. I appreciate that I'm not in a position to properly evaluate the complexities of climate, but the bigger picture is screaming at us from every graph we've ever seen on the subject, isn't it?

I like XKCD's temperature timeline illustration, it really puts into perspective the timescales we're talking about.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

The situation has deteriorated considerably since this video was posted.

You really shouldn't copy/paste from elsewhere. We can talk to bots with formulated responses any time.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Nothing can help. But hope keeps us alive.
Are the 43 million children displaced by global warming between 2016 and 2021 also under the influence of a sect? What is the name of this sect weirdness that you're alone in?

You have a religious belief, which is increasingly manifesting as a death cult. "THE END IS NIGH" etc, etc. You don't recognise it and I understand that. But it's true. It's not for me to do an intervention, and your faith is so strong that nothing I say would affect it. I have no dog in the fight, as they say.

Like so many who fall for the cult, you dogmatically repeat many lies in the climate orthodoxy, such as:-

Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years. UNTRUE

100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions. UNTRUE

There is no study of real scientific significance which contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective. UNTRUE

Global warming is proven. So is global cooling.

Its anthropogenic cause is demonstrated. MISINFORMATION There is a gulf of space between finding/recognising an anthropogenic component and attributing catastrophe to that component.

The direct consequences of global warming are observable and measurable. DEBATABLE

The nature and speed of current warming have nothing in common with previous climate variations and natural cycles. UNTRUE

I will simply quote Michael Crichton, who is one of my favourite authors and is, to science, what Orwell is to politics, who addresses the crisis in the field of scientific advancement:-

Quote from Michael Crichton :

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

...

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Crichton is correct, and science is in a terrible state today because the tenets of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Method, have been abandoned for abysmally low standards that permit such things as climate catastrophism and the currently prevailing scientific claims that there is no such thing as biological sex, or is nothing but a social construct.

Quote from Racon :

This is how I feel. I appreciate that I'm not in a position to properly evaluate the complexities of climate, but the bigger picture is screaming at us from every graph we've ever seen on the subject, isn't it?

I sympathise! As I mentioned in my earlier post, it's difficult to access the breadth of scientific opinion because, for example, Google's search results are heavily manicured. There is a wealth of scientific analysis out there which discusses, analyses and disputes the accepted narrative, but it's difficult to access. It is out there, though.

Just as a really simple example, attached is a temporal analysis of temperature and CO2 levels. You can see that temperature leads CO2. You can debate what the implications are, beyond the obvious that the tail is apparently wagging the dog, but you cannot dispute the data. As hotly debated as this graph has been, nobody has found any articulable problem with the statistical methodology used or the real-world data underpinning it. The evidence suggests that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.

So, there are extremely important questions still to be answered, and any scientist who tells you that "the science is settled" is no scientist at all. WHAT they are, I cannot know. The cynic in me suggests "profiting".

Quote from SamH :

You really shouldn't copy/paste from elsewhere. We can talk to bots with formulated responses any time.


You have a religious belief, which is increasingly manifesting as a death cult. "THE END IS NIGH" etc, etc. You don't recognise it and I understand that. But it's true. It's not for me to do an intervention, and your faith is so strong that nothing I say would affect it. I have no dog in the fight, as they say.

Like so many who fall for the cult, you dogmatically repeat many lies in the climate orthodoxy, such as:-

Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years. UNTRUE

100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions. UNTRUE

There is no study of real scientific significance which contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective. UNTRUE

Global warming is proven. So is global cooling.

Its anthropogenic cause is demonstrated. MISINFORMATION There is a gulf of space between finding/recognising an anthropogenic component and attributing catastrophe to that component.

The direct consequences of global warming are observable and measurable. DEBATABLE

The nature and speed of current warming have nothing in common with previous climate variations and natural cycles. UNTRUE

I will simply quote Michael Crichton, who is one of my favourite authors and is, to science, what Orwell is to politics, who addresses the crisis in the field of scientific advancement:-



Crichton is correct, and science is in a terrible state today because the tenets of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Method, have been abandoned for abysmally low standards that permit such things as climate catastrophism and the currently prevailing scientific claims that there is no such thing as biological sex, or is nothing but a social construct.

For your information, I was referring to the video posted by rane_nbg in the post just above mine. Which reported a warming of 1.1° in 2021.

Thank you, I understand your positions better now that I know your scientific references.

You know SamH, it's not me that you have to convince of the relevance of your analyses, it's the entire scientific world.

Quote from Racon :

This is how I feel. I appreciate that I'm not in a position to properly evaluate the complexities of climate, but the bigger picture is screaming at us from every graph we've ever seen on the subject, isn't it?

I like XKCD's temperature timeline illustration, it really puts into perspective the timescales we're talking about.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yes. I do not know why ? But it sometimes reminds me of the story of the madman who jumps from the building and repeats on each floor “so far so good”.
But thanks to SamH, I suddenly feel reassured.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

For your information, I was referring to the video posted by rane_nbg in the post just above mine. Which reported a warming of 1.1° in 2021.

Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood!

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Thank you, I understand your positions better now that I know your scientific references.

You think Crichton is a scientific reference? Crichton is a meta-analyst, in this context. I'd have thought you would be able to figure that out.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

But thanks to SamH, I suddenly feel reassured.

You have your religion!

Quote from SamH :

Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood!

You think Crichton is a scientific reference? Crichton is a meta-analyst, in this context. I'd have thought you would be able to figure that out.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything.

Crichton's fanciful remarks about scientific consensus were contrary to the very principles of meta-analysis. Conceptually, his words are the pure negation of this. (The IPCC, for example, does a meta-analysis).

Crichton's only connection to (real) science was medicine. Imagine what scientific medicine would look like without medical consensus? (on hygiene standards, different medical protocols, training of doctors, administrative management of patients, hospitals, etc.)
Historically, Western surgeons ceased to be butchers from the moment Pasteur's discoveries gained consensus. Modern medical science was born from this consensus.

Of course, there is always resistance. Geniuses, heroes, non-conformist personalities who free themselves from consensual medical realities to chart their own path as autodidacts. We call them charlatans. When they take a scalpel, they find themselves in court after having caused more or less victims.

On the other hand, the nurse who takes your temperature is not a doctor. It does not rely on medical consensus to read the temperature given by the thermometer. Regardless of which hole she inserted it into, the nurse doesn't have to be a great scientist to know that the thermometer is not the cause of the patient's temperature.

If we approach the problem through the dog metaphor, there is no evidence that wagging a dog's tail doesn't make it happy. You can verify this empirically (preferably with dogs who know you). It will depend on the dog, its age, its desire to play or its need for someone to be interested in it. But in the case that concerns us, the dog's tail moves in synchronization with the already well-cooked sausage, which moves in front of its nose. I am not a climate expert or dog expert. But I can assure you that wagging a dog's tail will never make a sausage appear or disappear.

The belief that warming produces CO2 is triple comfortable. It allows us to not question anything in human evolution, to accept destiny while adopting a rebellious posture. But this posture is hollow.

Sometimes you have to go back to the fundamentals of science and basic logic. To the speculations of the followers of the climate sceptic sect, I prefer Ockham's razor's edge. Scientific discoveries and hypotheses are enough for me .

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years. 100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Of course, there is always resistance.

Both cannot be true.

(edit): A helpful link discussing scientific uncertainty, and how important it is - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1317504111

Interesting talk by Nic Lewis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZW-6jw98U

But you aggressively label anyone who challenges the dogma of your religion as a charlatan, despite knowing (surely!?!?) that papers disputing papers are published in peer-reviewed journals, just as any other papers, and negating any possibility in your mind that they might be advancing science in the process of scientific endeavour. This can ONLY be because you are a religious zealot, and a member of a death cult, and you will do and say anything to defend your cult, no matter how anti-scientific it is. And you pretend to do it all "in the name of science".

If what you are promoting actually were science, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populam), the "pooh-pooh" fallacy and a plethora of other logical fallacies in your posts.

As I've said before, I say again, your science isn't good enough to draw a conclusion, let alone to inform public policy, least of all as the basis for restructuring the entire global economy. It's not science, if it cannot be challenged, it's a belief system and as with the most devout of believers, it's a waste of anyone else's time to try and introduce rationalism or reason to you. You have your belief and you will defend it to the death - which, if Greta Thunberg is to believed, I think is about a week next Wednesday? Could be Thursday, not sure...