|
| Headline |
Author |
Published |
Section |
'We are just recovering from the LIA'
Why should we expect this to happen? |
Coby Beck |
23 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age. Answer: This argument relies on an implicit assumption that there is a particular climatic baseline to which the earth inexorably returns -- and thus that a period of globally lower temperatures will inevitably be followed by a rise in temperatures. What is the scientific basis for that assumption? There is no evidence of such a bas ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'The CO2 rise is natural'
No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven |
Coby Beck |
23 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It's clear from ice cores and other geological history that CO2 fluctuates naturally. It is bogus to assume today's rise is caused by humans. Answer: We emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air. Surely it is not so difficult to believe that the CO2 rise is our fault. But if simple common sense is not enough, there is more to the case. (I ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, greenhouse-gas emissions, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
What does 'politicization of science' mean to you?
Discuss |
Andrew Dessler |
22 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| People talk about the 'politicization' of science all the time, usually in the form of an accusation designed to paint an opponent as biased or corrupt. Let's take a moment to think about the term and what it means. Science is a multi-layered, collective, and impersonal process consisting of three parts:individual scientists working under the scientific method,the results of the individual scientists undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate science, politics (all these topics) |
|
|
'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'
But emissions are only one side of the equation |
Coby Beck |
22 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference can we make? Answer: It's true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, greenhouse-gas emissions, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Climate is always changing'
That doesn't mean it isn't different today |
Coby Beck |
21 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate has always changed. Why are we worried now, and why does it have to be humans' fault? Answer: Yes, climate has varied in the past, for many different reasons, some better understood than others. Present-day climate change is well understood, and different. Noting that something happened before without humans does not demonstrate that humans are not causing it today. For example, we see ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'The null hypothesis says global warming is natural'
An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway |
Coby Beck |
20 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Natural variability is the null hypothesis; there must be compelling evidence of an anthropogenic CO2 warming effect before we take it seriously. Answer: The null hypothesis is a statistical test, and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not -- there are known mechanisms involved whose ef ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'
Not even close ... |
Coby Beck |
20 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect. Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, greenhouse-gas emissions, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Mars and Pluto are warming too'
No they aren't -- and what if they were? |
Coby Beck |
19 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming. Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes. The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place t ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
New polling data on global warming ...
It's disheartening |
Andrew Dessler |
19 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| ... can be found here (hat tip to pollster.com). Here's the important result: American voters tend to see Global Warming as a serious problem but are divided as to whether it's caused by human activities or long-term planetary trends. This is important because: As with most issues, the understanding of why something is happening has a huge impact on perceptions about the issue. Among those who believe human activity is the primary cause of Global Warming, 71% cons ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science (all these topics) |
|
|
Top 10 climate stories of 2006: Part II
Heat, hotness, and hotitude |
Andrew Dessler |
19 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| Here are the second five of my 'Top 10 climate stories of 2006,' in no particular order. (The first five are here.) 2005 was hot: In early 2006, it was revealed that 2005 was a statistical tie with 1998 for the hottest year of the past 400. However, 1998 was warmed by the biggest El Nino of the 20th century, while 2005 had no such help. That means something else contributed to making 2005 so warm, and that something was almost certainly human activity. With a mild ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate science (all these topics) |
|
|
'Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle'
This idea is just one short step above appealing to magic |
Coby Beck |
18 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle. Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges. First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Vineland was full of grapes'
Or was it an early advertising campaign? |
Coby Beck |
18 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Newfoundland was so warm in the Medieval Warm Period that when the Vikings landed they called it Vineland and brought boatloads of grapes back to Europe. Answer: Once again: you can't draw conclusions about global climate from an anecdote about a single region, or even a few regions. You need detailed analysis of proxy climate indicators from around the world. These proxy reconstructions have sh ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'The hockey stick is broken'
Well, no ... but who's playing hockey anyway? |
Coby Beck |
17 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The Hockey Stick graph -- the foundation of global warming theory -- has been shown to be scientifically invalid, perhaps even a fraud. Answer: The first order of business here is to correct the mischaracterization of this single paleoclimate study as the "foundation" of global warming theory. What's going on today is understood via study of today's data and today's best sci ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Global warming is nothing new'
Yes, the last ice age started thawing over 20,000 years ago, but that stopped a long time ago |
Coby Beck |
16 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global warming has been going on for the last 20,000 years. Answer: It is true that 20,000 years ago the temperature was some 8 to 10° C colder than it is today. But to draw a line from that point to today and say, "look, 20K years of global warming!" is dubious and arbitrary at best. If you have look at this graph of temperature, starting at a point when we were finishing the ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Greenland used to be green'
Don't judge a book by its cover, much less a land by its name |
Coby Beck |
16 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: When the Vikings settled it, Greenland was a lovely, hospitable island, not the frozen wasteland it is today. It was not until the Little Ice Age that it got so cold they abandoned it. Answer: First, Greenland is part of a single region. It can not be necessarily taken to represent a global climate shift. See the post on the Medieval Warm Period for a global perspective on this time period. Br ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'
Repetition of this point has failed to make it any more true |
Coby Beck |
15 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England! Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum'
In fact, the warmth of this period was not global and not like today. |
Coby Beck |
14 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today -- without any human influence. Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months. What's more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissi ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Hansen has been wrong before'
Maybe, but not about the climate! |
Coby Beck |
14 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today? Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie. In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that t ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, James Hansen (all these topics) |
|
|
Global warming: worry, don't panic
It's a disaster, not a catastrophe |
Gar Lipow |
02 Dec 2006 |
Gristmill |
| A Guardian story suggests that we may have as much as eight degrees of global warming already locked in, in the form of stored heat in the ocean. But a substantial stored-heat backlog in the ocean has been well-known for some time. That it is greater than expected is bad news -- but (as I've confirmed in correspondence with Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate) this does not mean that all or most of that stored heat is going to 'come back' and fry the planet, provided we take act ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change impacts, climate science (all these topics) |
|
|
Could the Sun be causing climate change?
It's likely not the primary cause |
Andrew Dessler |
25 Nov 2006 |
Gristmill |
| In climate change debates, one hears a lot about the Sun. A favorite argument of those opposed to action is that the warming we're presently experiencing is due to increases in solar output, also known as solar brightening, and not from greenhouse gases. Before critiquing this argument, first remember what the IPCC says about human contribution to climate change: There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is at ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate science (all these topics) |
|
|
'They predicted global cooling in the 1970s'
There was a bit of speculation, but nothing even remotely resembling today's consensus |
Coby Beck |
24 Nov 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an ice age in the '70s. Now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them this time? Answer: It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies a ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?'
Understanding what is happening right under our noses does not require paleoclimate perfection |
Coby Beck |
23 Nov 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate science can't even fully explain why the climate did what it did in the past. How can they claim to know what is going on today? Answer: There are two requirements for understanding what happened at a particular point of climate change in geological history. One is an internally consistent theory based on physical principles; the other is sufficient data to determine the physical p ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
'Chaotic systems are not predictable'
Sure, but who says climate is chaotic? |
Coby Beck |
22 Nov 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate is an inherently chaotic system, and as such its behavior can not be predicted. Answer: Firstly, let's make sure we define climate: an average of weather patterns over some meaningful time period. We may thus discount the chaotic annual fluctuations of global mean temperature. That's weather, and one or two anomalous years does not represent a climate shift. Quite a few people beli ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
The CO2-temperature correlation
It's more complicated than you might think |
Andrew Dessler |
21 Nov 2006 |
Gristmill |
| Most people interested in climate change have seen the plots showing strong correlations between CO2 and temperature going back several hundred thousand years: FIGURE: Data from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica, from 410,000 years ago to the present. The top curve shows abundance of CO2 (in parts per million) from air bubbles in the ice core. The bottom curve shows the temperature anomaly in the Antarctic region, relative to the present, from isotopic measur ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate science, greenhouse-gas emissions (all these topics) |
|
|
'We can't even predict the weather next week'
But weather is not climate -- that's why we have two distinct words |
Coby Beck |
21 Nov 2006 |
Gristmill |
| (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now? Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different. Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredic ... |
|
| Topics: climate, climate change skepticism, climate science, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (all these topics) |
|
|
|
©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.