When is 'common sense' a valid tool with regards to global warming?

Question

Probably the most oft-cited reasoning for peoples' conclusions on global warming is "common sense".

Some people think that because the global climate has changed naturally in the past, common sense dictates that the current warming is natural.

Others argue that because the Sun is responsible for most of the heat on Earth, common sense dictates that it must be responsible for the current global warming.

Others argue that because of the nature of greenhouse gases and the fact that solar irradiance has remained steady on average as global warming has increased the most, common sense dictates that CO2 is the primary cause of the current warming.

These "common sense" explanations all contradict eachother ('natural cycles' are sometimes partially caused by the Sun, but not always or entirely).

So the question arises - whose common sense should we trust? Is common sense ever a suitable guide on an issue as complex as global warming?

Answer 1

Other then you and few others that are chasing your own tails. I would think Phenology  actually shows a period of prosperity. Anyway good luck on your speculative concepts.

Answer 2

Dr Jello's answer personifies why addressing the issue like this is futile.  The problem is people like him want a deterministic answer out of a nonlinear and chaotic system.  That simply isn't possible and common sense in this case doesn't work because our common sense is notoriously faulty in evaluating risk and probability.  So the Jello's of the world are incapable of assessing their true risk, and because of that, rely on all sorts of "common sense" arguments, which are really rationalizations, for why they should not endure certain hardships (e.g., eating less beef, driving less often, being a little warmer in the summer and colder in the winter) in order to mitigate something that only might happen (even if the a realistic estimation of the probabilities show that *might* implies a greater than 90% chance of warming occurring).  

I kid people that the first thing you have to do to solve global problems is breed a new kind of human, one that could act out of an elightened self-interest that the purpose of life is propagation of the species.  

Anyway, common sense doesn't work since most common sense decisions require an understanding of the probabilities involved and the costs, risks and rewards.  The risks in this case are too vague, the rewards non-existent in the short-term, and the costs too high, so there is no rational argument you can put forth that will change their minds.

Answer 3

I think common sense may work for an individual looking at infrared absorption spectra of gases like carbon dioxide and oxygen, and let him conclude that warming *could* happen *if* the atmosphere had more Co2.  

If he can believe the Keeling Curve, he might suppose warming *is* happening, even if there is no direct measurement.  

To actually measure and 'average' the temperature of the entire planet takes lots of data and computers, and probably moves way beyond common sense, as does the Global Circulation Models which attempt to match past data and predict future trends.  (Short and Long-term weather forecasting)

Answer 4

The correct answer is none.  We should stick to objective science, and objective facts.  We shouldn't have to rely on the number of people who support one theory or another, we shouldn't have to support another theory because of who or the status of a person believes the theory is correct.

It's the facts, and only the facts that we should look at.

We shouldn't say that it will be warmer unless we know it will be warmer in the future.

To say it will be warmer in the future is just a guess.  There is no mathematical proof that this is right.

And guessing isn't science.

[Edit] Dana - If I'm wrong, tell us if it will be warmer this summer, and show the work to how you came to that conclusion.  Show us that you 'know' it will be warmer rather than just guessing that it will be warmer.

[Edit] "You Bet"?  This isn't science, this is just a guess.  I'm sure you know the difference between objective science and opinion.  So why do you just give me your opinion?  Why not just give us the calculations you use when you say it will be warmer this summer?

Answer 5

'Common sense' is crucial to good science.  For example..... if I know that the surface temperature data used by climatologists is flawed.....then 'common sense' tells me that their findings will be flawed.  'Common Sense' also tells me that until the Earth's surface monitoring stations are properly located and maintained..... many well-meaning scientists will continue to churn out 'polluted' findings.

Edit:

A poster below stated that 'common sense' could support AGW....and I quote:

"Given that the majority of scientist accept AGW as fact and have much peer reviewed evidence to support it common sense will tell you that global warming is casued by man and is a problem."

The point that this poster totally missed is that the evidence used by these scientists....was and is...flawed.  So if the "peers" are basing their beliefs on flawed data.....then guess what!!??

Answer 6

Well if common sense counts for an argument for the deniers I can use it in support of AGW too. Given that the majority of scientist accept AGW as fact and have much peer reviewed evidence to support it common sense will tell you that global warming is casued by man and is a problem. So really common sense is not good becasue anyone can use it.

Answer 7

Common sense might allow an open minded person to see that:

1) Global temperature is rising.  No temperature data sets disagree with the measured trend of 120+ years of global warming (or they'd be trotted out regularly in these discussions).  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  None.

2) Greenhouse gas theory is pretty darned well studied and confirmed.  For example, the 750°K temperature of Venus, with its atmosphere of 90% carbon dioxide, is strong evidence supporting greenhouse gas theory.

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Mar1996/p...

3) It's been confirmed through carbon isotope analysis that mankind has increased CO2 levels significantly, as global temperatures rose.

Since we know that CO2 can cause several hundred degrees of warming, since we've observed that mankind has increased CO2 and earth's temperature rose, and since we know that climate change can dramatically affect our essentials such as food water supplies, common sense dictates that we do something to moderate the cause.

Unfortunately the IPCC reports fail to accurately reflect scientists' views.  The process allowed countries with a clear agenda such as Saudi Arabia and the Bush Administration to edit the text:

"The scientific consensus most people are familiar with is the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" reports. But those aren't a majority opinion. Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and revision of these summaries. So China, Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism -- the Bush administration -- get to veto anything they don't like. The deniers call this "politicized science," suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative or watered-down document.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0...

As a result, the emerging evidence tends to be worse than forecasted, indicating that the urgency and severity of the problem may be severely underestimated.

- Three papers published after the IPCC reports concluded that sea level rise this century will be much higher than the IPCC reports:

"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"

- One scientist forecasted last year that the Arctic could be nearly ice free by 2012.  That's dramatically sooner than past estimates.

- There is a 50 percent chance Lake Mead will run dry by 2021 and a 10 percent chance it will run out of usable water by 2014...

- One scenario examined by the Pentagon examines the possibility of food riots, anarchy, and possibly nuclear war by 2020.  

In fact, the cost of food has skyrocketed in the past year and food riots have already started:

http://www.climatechangenews.org/nFood.h...

The World's Growing Food-Price Crisis - TIME

"Soaring prices of staples — which have risen about 75% since 2005, driven by growing demand, rising oil prices and the effects of global warming — have sparked riots in several countries, as people reel from sticker shock and governments scramble to feed their people."

Fresh records for price of wheat- BBC News

"Wheat prices have hit record levels as supplies dwindle, raising concerns about growing food inflation. Reports of a drought in Northern China, where most of the country's wheat is grown, also pushed prices higher. Extreme weather has already damaged crops in other parts of the world and US wheat inventories are expected to fall to their lowest level for 60 years."



Many other recent observations reveal that the IPCC has been underestimating impacts:



- Since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than any IPCC model had projected.

- The temperature rise from 1990 to 2005 -- 0.33°C -- was "near the top end of the range" of IPCC climate model predictions.

- "The recent [Arctic] sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the (19) IPCC [climate] models" -- and that was a Norwegian expert in 2005. Since then, the Arctic retreat has stunned scientists by accelerating, losing an area equal to Texas and California just last summer.

- "The unexpectedly rapid expansion of the tropical belt constitutes yet another signal that climate change is occurring sooner than expected," noted one climate researcher in December.

Denialists like to state that we've been coming out of an ice age for some time, and that there's no evidence that current warming is unusual.  That's simply untrue:

New Research Confirms Antarctic Thaw Fears - Spiegel Online

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk...

"The paper also states that the thickness of the Pine Island Glacier has shrunk by an average of 3.8 centimeters annually over the past 4,700 years. But the Smith and Pope glaciers have only lost 2.3 centimeters of their thickness annually during the past 14,500 years. Satellite measurements taken between 1992 and 1996, though, show a loss of 1.6 meters in thickness per year on the Pine Island Glacier -- a figure that represents 42 times the average melt of the past 4,700 years."

Common sense indicates that we have more than enough data to act on, and very little time to act on it to prevent massive damage to our global food supplies.

Answer 8

This issue has reminded me of the great debate in England circa 1935, about the intentions of Hitler. Speculation, theory, mixed with overwhelming opinion. The only speculation I see, is the time frame.  

If there is even a remote % that this event could occur, naturally or man made, where is the harm in preparing for such an eventuality ?  Ridicule ?

Civilization has lived during a nice, quiet and stable period, even though the 10,000 years is a blink in cosmic time.

"Common sense"?  To each their own. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, don't venture into my neighborhood looking for food and water or anything else. You won't like the reception.

Answer 9

Common sense???  Are you kidding?  You present false information and then come up with common sense?

Gore lied to you, Gore lied to all of us and is reaping the profits.

You don't even understand the 'common sense' that the sun warms us.  CO2 gets warmed by the sun and cools at night...  Plain as the fact that global warming is a joke, a hoax and the biggest scam in this century.