Global Warming skeptic

A friend and I were recently discussing Global Warming - she read some book in which she says it explained how Global Warming was just a big hoax and that it was footnoted, etc.

I sent her a Washington Post article on Global Warming, her response:

Since time began, the climate has been changing. Ohio
was once covered by glaciers. We didn't have global
warming when they disappeared. Maybe it's natural for
the climate to change and nothing we do can stop it.
Maybe it doesn't make sense to pour millions of
dollars into a losing battle. Look at the stats in
this article - 1 degree increase in 30 years (you
could probably read 10 articles with 10 different
degree changes, like the 4 degree increase in the
Canada article), ice masses are actually gaining mass,
what has melted on the perimeter could measure a .008"
increase in sea level? Also, they don't tell you that
the ice has been melting for the last thousand years
and at what rate and if there has been a rise in the
sea level. The articles are also full of words like
uncertain, potentially, likely, could, possible.
Doesn't sound like a disaster to me. These articles
create fear without fact.

I want to respond with - of course the climate has been changing since time began but not at the same rapid pace as it is today - if anyone has a link to a graph that shows historical changes could you let me know? (I saw a graph at a presentation by Al Gore - i haven't been able to find it but it shows how it went up gradually then we experienced the Ice Age and now the rate is just increasing off the charts.

I also wanted to point out to her that of course you are going to have differences in the average changes based on lattitude, etc.

Of course Ohio was covered by ice - as a result of climate change!!!!

to address the melting ice and rising sea level - a chart showing the gradual increase as opposed to the current and projected rapid increase would help.

Her comment about the words possible, likely, uncertain - well, since it is a prediction of course they will use those words.

I would appreciate any help / links you could provide for a response -
Thanks!

She demands 100% certainty before admitting that any data element is acceptable, and that's simply unreasonable. I suspect also that she is not so demanding of the data that support her own arguments.

Others can give you better ammunition than I can provide, but here are a few thoughts:

Since time began, the climate has been changing. Ohio
was once covered by glaciers. We didn't have global
warming when they disappeared. Maybe it's natural for
the climate to change and nothing we do can stop it.

That is a statement of the exact uncertainty that she deplores in your views. Ask her why she tolerates her own "Maybe" statements but not yours. It is significant that the rate of increase in global temperature corresponds with humanity's accelerating use of fossil fuels. Granted, this is not in itself conclusive, but it is significant.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to pour millions of
dollars into a losing battle.

Parenthetically, is your friend a Republican? If so, you might press her on this argument and ask at what point we should stop pouring money into Bush's various losing battles (though I grant that this would be perceived as a smokescreen and detract from your argument about Global Warming).

ice masses are actually gaining mass,
what has melted on the perimeter could measure a .008"
increase in sea level? Also, they don't tell you that
the ice has been melting for the last thousand years
and at what rate and if there has been a rise in the
sea level.

Where does she get this information? How can the ice masses be gaining mass if the ice has been melting for the last thousand years? And where does she suppose that all of this melted ice has gone, if not into the sea (which according to her has not risen)?

The articles are also full of words like
uncertain, potentially, likely, could, possible.
Doesn't sound like a disaster to me.

Honestly, the disaster occurs when people refuse to accept data

These articles create fear without fact.

What book did your friend read? Was it something by Stephen J. Milloy, the well-known apologist for Conservative interests in general and the energy industry in particular? I'm guessing that it was Michael Crichton's State of Fear, the latest in his long and stultifying line of "science" fiction novels.

Sorry I don't have more to offer. Your friend seems content to believe that humans have little impact on the environment, and it's difficult to argue with such a person, since facts and evidence have little power to persuade them.

If they won't listen to facts, I go for emotion.

Would you rather look your grand kids in the eyes, and say:

a. "I did everything I could and we made a difference."
b. "I did everything I could, but it did not make a difference."
c. "I did not believe the warnings. I did nothing. I will never know if I could have made a difference."

Remember, God put us in charge. We should be doing everything possible.

:hi:

Remember, God put us in charge. We should be doing everything possible.

Regarding that bit, I'm always amazed that the same Conservatives who think that we're the most important species in all creation also think that we have no power to affect/harm creation. A fine example of having/eating our cake, IMO.

I don't understand why they are so stubborn about it either. I guess they do not realize that about the only industry "harmed" by ignoring the waring is, um, would that be, Big Oil?

another one I just love, is the brilliant argument against evolution. "If we descended from the apes, why are there still apes?" If you do not understand something, how can you argue against it?

but I'm afraid going for emotion might make her dig in at this point. I think the post that mentions she is probably on propaganda overload is pretty accurate. I think I'll just try to stay subtle and keep giving her some facts. If that doesn't work, then it might be time to try the emotional buttons.

Thanks for your reply. :)

I think she read the Crichton book - I have an e-mail back to her to see.

She's actually a Dem - just stubborn on this issue. maybe you're right and it will do little good to argue with her on this one if she has her mind made up.

I wish I had the slides from the Al Gore seminar at Ohio State that I went too - but, maybe that wouldn't do much good either.

1500 million metric tons of carbon.

That is the U.S. alone!

Denying that these emissions have an effect on the environment borders on delusional.

a site run by climate scientists. If she's unwilling to believe the conclusions of climate scientists about the climate, then she has some 'splaining to do.

Each of the contrarian talking points she's raised is addressed and thoroughly refuted by a source cited article over on RealClimate. As PP says, if she won't accept the scientific evidence there's no point in continuing discussion.

briefly at work. I'll have to go visit it now that I'm home.
thanks for the link.

People saying "what happened to global warming" every time there is a cold snap shows that the lay person doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather. On another message board there is a poster who thinks there is no way people could produce that much CO2 so all that CO2 must have a natural source. :eyes:

(lifted from wiki, but there are other versions around)



We left the normal climate change (ice age/warm period) cycle in the '50's: CO2 traps heat, which is why all the bloody ice is melting: From the BBC:



This sort of change used to take centuries or millennia: now it takes a few years. It's not natural climate change that's the problem: It the fact that we are responsible, and we're forcing it at an incredible rate.

Edit: BTW Ask her which book she read: If it's "State of Fear", ask her why she's getting her information from a fiction writer rather than a climatologist. Then ask her if she believes their really are dinosaurs living on a secret island because he said so.

That is almost the exact graph that I was looking for!

...I love the way it ends a fucking vertical line! :)

I attended a seminar at OSU given by Al Gore a couple of years ago - it was a real eye-opener for me. I didn't doubt Global Warming, but didn't realize it was HERE...

The graph you presented is almost the same (just flipped around) - my jaw hit the floor. the pics you gave are also great. His slide show featured several showing the elimination or recession of several glaciers.

She's been subjected to so much propaganda that her brain is beginning to treat all information as subjective. Here is an outline for an objective look at the global warming issue--supporting documentation is not at all hard to find:

1. Carbon dioxide is opaque to infra-red radiation. This is not a talking point. This is an objective fact which can be verified (and calibrated) by direct experiment.

2. Solar radiation arrives at the earth's surface mostly in the form of visible and ultra-violet radiation (not infra-red). Again verifiable by direct experiment.

3. This radiation heats land and water masses which in turn re-emit the energy mostly in the infra-red range (again verifiable).

4. If a structure allows visible and/or ultra-violet radiation in, but doesn't allow infra-red out, it will get hotter than the surrounding environment when placed in the sun. This is the principle of a greenhouse, it is theoretically sound and, in fact, it works and is used all over the globe for hot-houses for growing vegetables and flowers and for low-tech solar heating.

5. The concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been going up steeply since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This fact is verifiable (and has been verified, over and over) by direct measurement of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air (see results from long-running observatory in Hawaii (Mona Loa?) for example). Also, many techniques, including ice cores, tree rings and others, give a good idea of carbon-dioxide concentrations going back thousands of years. Thirty years ago there may have been some question as to whether these increases were due to human activity, but at this point it is clear that the pace of increase in carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere correlates very precisely with the increase calculated to be caused by the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and the decrease in forest cover (trees consume carbon dioxide FROM the atmosphere at a measurable rate). Thus, one has to imagine an amazing coincidence to argue that we are putting out carbon dioxide, the concentration of carbon dioxide is going up at exactly the rate we are putting it out, but somehow, magically, OUR carbon dioxide is being absorbed (say by the oceans) and some OTHER source is raising the concentration by the SAME amount. It is true that this is possible, but it is also about as likely as the earth turning out to be flat. Also, even in this magical scenario, decreasing the amount we are putting out would still slow the rate of increase, which would be a good idea, as shown below.

6. Now we come to the tricky part, prediction of the future. Although it is clear that OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL the verifed increase in carbon dioxide concentration coupled with the verified properties carbon dioxide (as far as transmision of visible light and absorbtion of infra-red) would lead to increased global temperatures, it was not clear, thirty years ago, what other 'feedback mechanisms' might come into play in the long run. Perhaps greater concentrations would cause the oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide. Perhaps higher temperatures would cause more complete cloud cover which would in turn decrease temperatures. Computer models were constructed and more precise measurements were made. Since these models didn't agree precisely in their predictions, there was some uncertainty. However, today we have much more powerful computers and models and thirty more years of measurements. At this point we are seeing temperature changes that match the predictions of the models quite well. In particular, the models predict a much faster temperature rise in the arctic regions, and the measurements show exactly this. They also predict a greater volatility in the atmosphere (i.e. more and stronger storms) and the measurements show exactly this.

7. Thus, we are presented with the following two possible conclusions:
a) Objective facts and scientific analysis predict global warming at a certain rate due to human output of carbon dioxide, we are seeing that rate of warming and, thus, the reasonable conclusion is that our output of carbon dioxide (mostly from burning fossil fuels) is heating up the planet.
or
b) Science, measurement and logic are all magically wrong, the warming we are seeing is just an amazing coincidence and we can just keep burning more and more fossil fuels, assuming other amazing conincidences will come along and keep the planet from heating up the way silly logic says it will.

8. It might be useful to point out that, although many of us would be inclined to choose (a) in number 7 above, individuals who have a large financial interest in the oil business might have a reason to argue for (b).

You gave me a lot of good points.

I think iit's very helpful to get discussion going on these things.

1) Since time began, the climate has been changing. Ohio
was once covered by glaciers. We didn't have global
warming when they disappeared. Maybe it's natural for
the climate to change and nothing we do can stop it.

This a fallacious argument -- known as the reductive fallacy. By reducing a complex system to single cause, the multiple influences on the system dynamics are ignored. The wax and wane of ice ages are primarily influenced by Milankovitch Cycles. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. Just because natural forces have influenced climate in the past, doesn't mean that we can't be influencing climate today. It is the logical equivalent of saying that the icy roads caused my car accident in January so my accident in July must also have been caused by icy roads.

2) Look at the stats in this article - 1 degree increase in 30 years (you could probably read 10 articles with 10 different degree changes, like the 4 degree increase in the Canada article)

This is an apparent confusion between regional changes and global average changes. The 1 degree change over the last 30 years refers to the global average surface temperature. The 4 degree change in Arctic regions are characteristic of the well predicted effect of enhanced greenhouse warming called Polar Amplification.

3) ice masses are actually gaining mass, what has melted on the perimeter could measure a .008" increase in sea level?

In some areas this is true. For instance, the Greenland ice sheet is gaining mass toward the center while the edges melt away rapidly. This too is actually a signal of global warming -- warmer air holds more water vapor and produces more snow (we upper midwest folks know that it can be too cold to snow). It is well documented that many of the world's glaciers are disappearing fast. Most sea level rise to date is the result of thermal expansion, however continued de-glaciation will add to and accelerate sea level rise.

4) The articles are also full of words like
uncertain, potentially, likely, could, possible.

The are no certainties in science. Proof is a mathematical concept not a scientific concept. I strongly suggest the book Uncertain Science ... Uncertain World by U of Michigan Geologist Henry Pollack.

5) These articles create fear without fact.

There are plenty of facts to explain current climate change as dominantly influenced by anthropogenic influences. See http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm as a starting place. The IPCC AR4 will be out next year with much more evidence.

I think I'll cut and paste a lot of it into another reply to her.

I hope she is receptive enough to absorb the truth about climate change. Good luck. If you need more help just ask. There are many knowledgeable folks that hang out in the E&E forum.

this person is an ass and stupid to boot.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Personally, I wouldn't even waste my time. Lt her keep her head up her ass. It belongs there.

and usually has an intelligent position on most issues.
I have no idea why she is digging in on this one. We have only been having this discussion for about a week. Hopefully she will start to come around with some facts. We're both pretty stubborn, so if she doesn't start to come around - you're right I might just let it go..... for a while......

Richard A. Kerr (2001) It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming
Science 2001. 26; 291: 566 (commentary and summary of recent research)

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science Vol. 292: pp 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

T. M. L. Wigley and S. C. B. Raper (2001) Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming. Science Vol. 293: 451-454.

Gille, S. T. (2002) Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science 295: 1275-1277

D. Rind (2002) The Sun's Role in Climate Variations. Science 296: 673-677

J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2002) Global Warming Continues. Science. 295: 275

S. T. Gille (2002) Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science vol 295:1275-1277.

D. W. J. Thompson and S. Solomon (2002) Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change. Science. 296: 895-899.

R. E. Moritz, Cecilia M. Bitz, and Eric J. Steig (2002) Dynamics of Recent Climate Change in the Arctic. Science. 297: 1497-1502.

E. Rignot and R. H. Thomas (2002) Mass Balance of Polar Ice Sheets. Science 297: 1502-1506.

T. R. Karl and K. E. Trenberth 2003 Modern Global Climate Change. Science. 302: 1719 - 1723

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003 Nature 432: 610-614

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

B. J. Soden, D. L. Jackson, V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, and X. Huang (2005) The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening. Science. 310: 841-844

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. J. Randel, B. D. Santer, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stenchikov (2006) Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling. Science. 311: 1138-1141

on edit: clean up