Global Warming and Information Manipulation

Nicely summarized, tjguy. I decided to take a break from the three stooges and look through some older posts. Yours is a breath of fresh air! :-) Regarding Myth 5, the Arctic icecap should be excluded since it's floating in water. The density of ice is slightly less than that of water, so the volume it displaces is slightly greater. Thus, if the Arctic icecap and all the icebergs in the world melted at once, the ocean level of the world wouldn't change measurably. -Q Querius

Yet greenhouses don’t work like the greenhouse effect does. Also we are talking about parts per million wrt CO2. At issue is the fact that while CO2 is continually increasing the global temperature is not. And we have not seen any pronounced extremes in the climate.

Good point. On top of that, we have had natural fluctuations of temperature in the past that had nothing to do with mankind so trying to pin it on man is at best controversial. How can you really show that experimentally? Our world is so huge and CO2 only a fraction of the greenhouse gases it seems very difficult to be able to say that "We can save the earth" by limiting our CO2 production. Plants produce much more CO2 than we do. Animals produce a lot as do volcanoes. I'm sure there are other sources as well. I'm not against studying the issue. Research is a good thing, but I'm afraid money does influence both sides and the "science" of it all is a bit questionable. There are also many possible reasons for why the temperature is rising. CO2 is not the only possible answer for that issue. Here is an excerpt from an article on creation.com concerning this issue:

by Russ Humphreys Published: 11 August 2009(GMT+10) Governments today are trying to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the air, because they fear that the greenhouse effect (which traps heat trying to leave the earth) of CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe. They point to computer simulations suggesting that result. But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see. Mythbusters needed! Aside from disposing of the main climate-change myth, that CO2 brings catastrophe, we first need to debunk a few secondary myths from both sides of the debate: Myth 1: CO2 is a pollutant. Wrong. Other things coming out of smokestacks and car exhausts are indeed pollutants; things both harmful and undesirable. Examples are: Sulfur dioxide, which returns to us as sulfuric acid in rain, and Soot, particles of carbon that blacken the landscape and get into our lungs. Such pollutants can be greatly reduced, and should be. But carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas, is a God-designed part of the cycle of life. We do (and must) exhale it with every breath. Plants do (and must) “inhale” it in order to make all of their solid tissue: leaves, wood, bark, roots, fruit, seed, etc. It is amazing that the green we see around us comes from the tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the air today: 387 parts per million, just 0.0387% of all the molecules in the air (as at March 2009). The amount of CO2 in the air would have to increase some hundredfold, say to 30,000 parts per million (3%), before it would become a problem to our breathing. Higher CO2 levels actually improve plant growth and productivity. There has been a substantial increase in the productivity of the world’s crops and forests due to the increased carbon dioxide concentrations, contributing to the food and fiber production to meet the needs of the growing human population.1 Myth 2: CO2 is not increasing. Wrong. Scientific records show a clear increase of 30% since 1880 and 22% from 1958 to 2007, the period of direct measurement. The measurements are not difficult to make or interpret. Moreover, we would expect roughly that amount of increase from the total volume of CO2 being released into the air. Debunkers of anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (AGW) should focus on other points. Myth 3: The earth is not warming. Analysis of temperatures from many locations, excluding those affected by urban growth,2 show a slight average (see Myth 4) global increase over the last century of about 0.5 degrees C. Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity,3 natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate. However, the earth began warming following the end of “The Little Ice Age” (about 1850), well before the increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels.4 In fact, global temperatures have fallen over the past eight years, despite increases in emissions. A simplistic approach would suggest that increased carbon dioxide levels should increase global temperature, but the existence of 10 times current levels before the Flood without runaway warming suggests that the current and likely increases will not have a major effect A simplistic approach would suggest that increased carbon dioxide levels should increase global temperature, but the existence of 10 times current levels before the Flood without runaway warming suggests that the current and likely increases will not have a major effect.5 Myth 4: Global warming must mean hotter tropics. Not necessarily. Much of the earth is cool year-round, such as the poles and high latitudes. Most of the ocean, below a depth of a few hundred feet, is barely above freezing. We could increase the temperatures of just those cool parts without warming the tropics and increase the average global temperature a great deal. In fact, most climate measurements appear to show a greater warming trend at high latitudes than in the tropics. In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore6 fails to make the distinction. Perhaps he found that particular truth inconvenient! Myth 5: Melting icecaps will drown the continents. Wrong. In the last 100 years the sea level has risen by 180 mm (7 inches). In the unlikely event that all the ice melted and the temperature increased as much as the highest temperature climate model predictions (warming also causes thermal expansion of the ocean water), the oceans would rise by a few dozen meters. That would reduce the land area of the continents by a few percent. Of course this would affect people living in low-lying coastal areas but there would be plenty of other land above sea level. Myth 6: Global warming is making weather more violent. Records of storm frequency and intensity show no increase in the violence of weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones and tornados. The number of severe tornados in the USA, for example, has declined 43% between 1950 and 2006.7

http://creation.com/global-warming-facts-and-myths Any thoughts? tjguy

ES:

The earlier name of the phenomenon was greenhouse effect, scientifically formulated and established nearly two hundred years ago.

Yet greenhouses don't work like the greenhouse effect does. Also we are talking about parts per million wrt CO2. At issue is the fact that while CO2 is continually increasing the global temperature is not. And we have not seen any pronounced extremes in the climate. Joe

Acartia_bogart

I have not really followed the science behind global warming but my understanding is that global warming has been fairly clearly demonstrated. It is climate change, the consequences of global warming, that is being debated by the scientists. But I do find it interesting that the countries who can benefit most by oil are the biggest opponents to the research. I don’t think that any hands are clean on this.

The earlier name of the phenomenon was greenhouse effect, scientifically formulated and established nearly two hundred years ago. Nearly half a century ago, ozone depletion was discovered and related to big-scale industrial pollution. Greenhouse effect does not mean mere warming when energy is added to the system. It's more like a water in a pot on a fire. The water warms up to the boiling point. From then on, water cannot get any warmer, but becomes turbulent, i.e. keeps boiling. The same in the atmosphere. As so-called greenhouse gases are added, the result is not just a uniformly more dense or more warm atmosphere, but an overloaded turbulent atmosphere. It's not a steady warming, but an added unsteadiness with more pronounced extremes in the climate phenomena. Ozone depletion was scientifically mapped and the relevant policy recommendations applied without any controversy, and they work (read Wikipedia references on this to get started). The controversy began when the broader application of the policies was debated and the issue was falsely renamed. Global warming is the wrong name for all this. The irrational renaming of the phenomonenon and the politicization of the science have made the issue controversial. Even though the renaming only applies to the English-speaking world, it's still unfortunate because this has a direct impact on the entire Western world. The science by itself is completely uncontroversial. E.Seigner

Aargh, Cantor . . . the searing light of logic . . . my brain, my brain. ;-) -Q Querius

I have not really followed the science behind global warming but my understanding is that global warming has been fairly clearly demonstrated.

If you haven't followed the science, whence came your "understanding"? cantor

Who would have guessed that the last ice age was actually caused by highly intelligent Neanderthal scientists who were worried about global warming and reduced atmospheric CO2 by ingenious methods involving the ocean? Lucky for us that the current "consensus" of scientists has been more motivated in acquiring grant money than experimenting with the earth's atmosphere! ;-) -Q Querius

There are HUGE amounts of money at stake. Billions, trillions of dollars to be transferred from "developed" countries to countries on the list of "endangered by global warming". There is also a HUGE international super-agency at stake. An international committee funded by carbon taxes that answers to no one and issue edicts about how everyone on Earthy MUST live. Or die. The working groups have already begun talking about regulated REDUCTION of human populations. This is the DREAM of every Central Planner who ever lived. He who controls Carbon Emissions controls the world. mahuna

I have not really followed the science behind global warming but my understanding is that global warming has been fairly clearly demonstrated. It is climate change, the consequences of global warming, that is being debated by the scientists. But I do find it interesting that the countries who can benefit most by oil are the biggest opponents to the research. I don't think that any hands are clean on this. Acartia_bogart

Why are the trying to manipulate the material by manipulating the immaterial? Mung

From the linked article:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

And this is the problem with establishment science today (or at least one of them). It's like the academic debate sparked by the recent COSMOS series over whether it should be considered acceptable to mislead and even lie to the public about the current state of the scientific evidence on big issues (Evolution, Climate Change, History of Science, etc.) in order to further political goals that are deemed desirable by secularists. According to some, perhaps many, the answer is, "Yeah, it just might be." HeKS