Global Warming a fake?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

I’m also worried that we worry disproportionately about pop-sci problems when other more-serious ones go virtually ignored.

That's where you and I seem to differ. I note that human induced global climate change IS a very serious problem, and NOT just a "pop-sci" one.

Also, you forgot to mention lack of availability of fresh drinking water in your list of resources coming under threat as population grows. It won't matter how much oil or phosphorous we can mine if there's not enough fresh water to drink... Not to mention the huge migrations of refugees which will take place as drinking water becomes more scarce/toxic.

Either way, I take issue with how you consider anthropogenic global warming to be merely a "pop-sci" issue, and not a "serious" problem, but I suppose that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Larv

Well, I agree it's all about future predictions. We can't discuss global warming and ignore its future implications. True, we humans are burning our carbon candle at both ends. And, true, the planet’s atmosphere is warming up again, as it has done many times before there were humans. But to say that this trend will cook us all in just a few generations may be overstating the case.

I would agree with the bold section IF somebody had said that. However, who has said that?
I don't believe anyone has stated that all humanity will reach cooking temperatures (225 to 350 farhenheit or so??).
You see, extreme exagerations such as that mislead the bystanders. Sure, most people that are participating in the discussion probably realize that is a misrepresentation of the concern, but others may not.
So, just which part of the real case is it you feel is being overstated?

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

...Also, you forgot to mention lack of availability of fresh drinking water in your list of resources coming under threat as population grows. It won't matter how much oil or phosphorous we can mine if there's not enough fresh water to drink... Not to mention the huge migrations of refugees which will take place as drinking water becomes more scarce/toxic.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's at least as dire an issue as global warming.

Either way, I take issue with how you consider anthropogenic global warming to be merely a "pop-sci" issue, and not a "serious" problem, but I suppose that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

For me, the jury is still out on anthropogenic global warming, but you present some interesting data. My main concern is one of scientific prudence: global warming has happened before without humans, and we still don't know exactly what the oceans can do or cannot do with the excess CO2.* And we don't have a decent cumulative-effects model that accounts for all the mitigating and exacerbating factors. There are just too many unknowns.

*In support of your argument, however, there are some convincing data on the acidification of the northern Pacific Ocean, which suggest massive absorption of atmospheric CO2 and conversion into H2CO3.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I would agree with the bold section IF somebody had said that. However, who has said that?
I don't believe anyone has stated that all humanity will reach cooking temperatures (225 to 350 farhenheit or so??).
You see, extreme exagerations such as that mislead the bystanders. Sure, most people that are participating in the discussion probably realize that is a misrepresentation of the concern, but others may not.
So, just which part of the real case is it you feel is being overstated?

But, Zythryn, there are voices of panic out there saying such things. Please read this article A Climate of Belief: The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable:

From the cited article’s conclusion:

It is critical to keep a firm grip on reason and rationality, most especially when social invitations to frenzy are so pervasive. General Circulation Models are so terribly unreliable that there is no objectively falsifiable reason to suppose any of the current warming trend is due to human-produced CO2, or that this CO2 will detectably warm the climate at all. Therefore, even if extreme events do develop because of a warming climate, there is no scientifically valid reason to attribute the cause to human-produced CO2. In the chaos of Earth’s climate, there may be no discernible cause for warming. Many excellent scientists have explained all this in powerful works written to defuse the CO2 panic, but the choir sings seductively and few righteous believers seem willing to entertain disproofs.

I do think there is something to the idea that anthropogenic global warming is a climatological belief system.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

we still don't know exactly what the oceans can do or cannot do with the excess CO2.*

<...>

*In support of your argument, however, there are some convincing data on the acidification of the northern Pacific Ocean, which suggest massive absorption of atmospheric CO2 and conversion into H2CO3.

Indeed, the oceans do take up CO₂, but their ability to do so appears to be decreasing as the concentration goes up. In short, the more oceans absorb, the less they are able to absorb in the future.


Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened

Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

In research published in Science, an international research team – including CSIRO’s Dr Ray Langenfelds – concludes that the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink has weakened over the past 25 years and will be less efficient in the future. Such weakening of one of the Earth’s major carbon dioxide sinks will lead to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long-term.

Regardless, this thread is about whether or not global warming is real, and I suggest it's safe to assume that this question has been answered.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Larv

But there is something even more ominous than peak oil: it’s peak phosphorus. We are running out of phosphate rock to mine and make fertilizers, detergents, and other phosphate chemicals needed by civilization. This could lead eventually to a catastrophic phosphorus famine, enough so as to relegate global warming to a lesser concern. What’s the point of industrialized agriculture if fertilizers become scarce? (And forget about GM crops here; no crops will grow without phosphorus.)

Larv raises a good point, I think, that resource depletion – including “peak production” scenarios where resource become prohibitively hard to obtain well before they’re truly depleted – are a concern for resources other than oil. However, as stated in both the linked articles, and IMHO, “peak phosphorous” is a less severe eventuality than peak oil or various “peak metals” – ie less of a factor in Olduvai scenarios – because phosphorous is very recyclable, and not an energy storing resource, like oil. Unless we’re stupidly short-sighted, a renewable source of phosphorous for all purposes, including its high-volume use in fertilizer, and be developed from sewage and agricultural and livestock runoff water handling systems, with the added benefit of preventing downstream environmental damage.

Originally Posted by Larv

We worry about what will happen to agriculture on our warmed-up planet. But it’s not just about greenhouse gases; it’s about massive resource depletion and how to sustain >10 billion people. Sure, I’m worried that we're burning too many fossil fuels, but I’m also worried that we worry disproportionately about pop-sci problems when other more-serious ones go virtually ignored.

I fear most of the popular press, and many of its consumers, are intrinsically sensational and short-sighted, so the majority of people at any given time will almost certainly be worrying about issues disproportionately with regards to their consequences (eg: the life, times and death of Michael Jackson, vs. public healthcare). Fortunately, planning and making changes in civil infrastructure – agriculture, energy, and waste management systems – doesn’t require the participation or even awareness of the majority of the population, but rather a small number of people who do have a realistic, scientific understanding of the issues facing our world civilization. I’m optimistic that our many doomsday scenarios are cautionary, not prophetic.

In addition to the differences noted between it and peak oil, and returning to this thread’s topic, peak phosphorous differs from human-induced climate change in that it doesn’t directly effect real estate. It effects what we have to eat, and how much it costs, not where we have to live, and how much it costs. The prospect of losing – or impoverishing – many wealthy, high-population density, low-elevation places – due to global and local sea level increases, seem to me the most alarming future world crisis scenarios.