The White House science advisor John Holdren wants to use the term Global Climate Disruption rather than Global Warming.

What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

republicans will still prefer their pseudo-scientific fantasies either way...

I thought we already switched to climate change?

Make up your minds darnit! My head hurts

I mean... The climate is changing, right? Do people still deny that?

yup they do indeed

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:yup they do indeed

I hear the arguments as to why it's happening, but I thought that the matter of Climate Change was pretty much settled.

Oh well.

I think the majority of people don't deny that the climate is changing (not including loony wing nuts) but where people disagree is whether it is natural or man caused.

My personal opinion is that the climate is changing and though it may have originally just been the natural rhythmms of the planet, the industrial revolution and the following growth of the use in fossil fuels has accelerated climate change. The problem is that it has been over politicized and hijacked by people who use it to further their own agendas. This is people on both sides.

However, those who advocate just ignoring it I have a low opinion of. Maybe we aren't the underlying cause of climate change, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening. Whatever the truth is, we certainly aren't helping.

It is a real concern and should be taken care of. On the other hand it isn't a catastrophe/apocalypse/doom scenario as some people would like to have us believe. At least not yet.

It's really just been hijacked by politics and distorted beyond recognition.

Have heard a lot of grumblings on other forums from punters denying that there is any change.

Some sections of the scientific community are doubtful, at least of the causation and the effects of greenhouse gasses. But there are occassional claims that there is no warming.

Sorry can't recall sources
cue petrol heads saying their driving won't make any difference.
Or buying plastic from the other side of the world come to that. Mia Culpa

amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

and republican radio hosts say
no it isnt

how many people prefer to believe the radio host. I mean whats their qualification anyway? What university did they go to? What experiments have they performed? What data have they collected? What research station have they ever visited? People are dumb. honestly.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

This is what i mean. The issue has been hijacked by politics and now no one knows who is right. Senator X pays Scientist Y to say Z so he can get his legislation passed. THE PROBLEM IS FETHING POLITICS.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

the work of scientists is subject to review by other professionals.
the work of talk show hosts is subject to review only by.... ditto heads.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiks
the scientists agree. its pretty clear. the problem is politics yes, but the politicians arent influencing the scientific debate. the scientific debate has been over for a while now. what limbaugh and guys like him say isnt that the science is unclear - they say scientists cant be trusted.

well... my question to them would be.... errr.... if you dont trust climate scientists to tell you whether climate change is real or not.... who do you trust? the all knowing rush? these guys are a joke that's all. just a joke.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:the work of scientists is subject to review by other professionals.

I'm no expert but my understanding is that the work of one climate change scientist would stand to review from other climate change scientists. Of course, they'd never help each other out, being in the same field with the same goals and all trying to get funding for research.

Of course they're probably right, but the idea of a group of individuals with like minded goals and ideas helping each other out is always likely, even when you'd think they'd be in competition for limited funding, not that it stays limited provided they continue to tout the horrors and dangers of global warming and their need for more research.

But then that's a conspiracy theory and I only read about those for laughs, but the idea that scientists exaggerate climate change to further their own goals isn't that far fetched in my mind. Different people in different fields, even those unrelated to science, have done it before.

the scientists agree. its pretty clear. the problem is politics yes, but the politicians arent influencing the scientific debate. the scientific debate has been over for a while now. what limbaugh and guys like him say isnt that the science is unclear - they say scientists cant be trusted.

It ended because one group of scientists decided they were right and pushed dissenters out of the community regardless of whether their criticisms had any merit.

Scientists can be bought, just like anyone else. The thing you need to look at with a lot of these "studies" is where the money is coming from to fund them.

A study funded by Exxon/Mobil is probably going to have different findings than one funded by, say, the EPA.

Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

Well dissenters always get marginilzed to some extent. Its possible that the dissenters are right, but you've got to defer to the expert consensus when you dont have knowledge yourself. thats the position we're in. Graham Hancock is a dissenter in the historical/archeological community, for instance, because he thinks the pyramids were built by space men. Gavin Menzis (sp?) is too, because he thinks the chinese discovered the Americas in 1421. Its possible that both of them are right and that the core group is wrong, but..... you know.... really..... I wouldnt bet on it. Thats how I feel abotu climate change too.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

Are we really arguing what it is called? at the end of the day we should just call it " is happening to the enviroment shut up and do something"

That would be too sensible and straight forward Garret

First you have to have a moritorium, meetings to arrange the moritorium, discussions prior to meetings to arrange ...
and so on and so forth ad infinitum till it's too cowin' late!

The climate is changing? Yeah is does that. It be weird if it didn't change. It's not new, it always changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-answers/30-article-series-1970/12544-was-the-sahara-really-once-a-jungle.html

I think environmentalists are right we should protect the earth when we can. But not out of some idea that we really effect the earth or the climate. I just don't think we need to be sloppy pigs with everything.

Russia caught on fire this year.......Southern California has had the coldest summer in recorded history. ......yit happens!
It be good if we can predict and plan for change....I just don't think we can really ever control it.

Aren't we technically coming to the end of a "mini" Ice Age at the moment anyway?

Not to say that I don't believe humans are to blame at least in part.
Although I find it amusing that every now and then you hear stories about how cows, or camels farting in the outback are producing too many greenhouse gasses =/

I always wonder if maybe getting warmer isn't necessarily bad. I mean, who's to say that we were at an optimal temperature?

Which isn't to say that I think we should pollute all that we want, just a musing I have from time to time. I'm all about conservation. /flameshield

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

and republican radio hosts say
no it isnt

how many people prefer to believe the radio host. I mean whats their qualification anyway? What university did they go to? What experiments have they performed? What data have they collected? What research station have they ever visited? People are dumb. honestly.

There's a real problem when there are congressional hearings on the topic and one side brings in climatologists who work the topic to testify and the other side brings in... Michael Crichton. And somehow the media has to show "both sides of the story" and not point out how idiotic one side actually is.

Or when politicians (Sen. Inhofe, I'm looking right at you), during the local snowstorms here in the DC area this year, point to all the snow and claim that "proves" global warming (climate change, whatever) is a hoax. Oddly enough, one of them has mentioned that the record heat in the area this summer could "prove" the opposite.

Or when pundits can claim, without fear of being called out for their hypocrisy, that climate researchers are motivated "by money" because if they can't make a case for climate change then their funding will dry up. But at the same time are willing to hawk "studies" disproving/questioning anthropogenic climate change that are done by places like the Heartland Institute which receive their funding directly from the oil and coal industries.

And, of course, when serious climatologists are careful to couch all their findings -correctly- with the usual caveats of the scientific enterprise. While pundits are completely free to claim whatever they want. Repeat after me, "A theory is not a guess... A theory is a hypothesis which stood up to repeated testing against all the available data."

Charlie Pierce wrote a great book covering what's wrong with the American discourse on science titled, "Idiot America". The title's a bit misleading, but his insights are pretty good.

We've managed to find ourselves in a situation were people have been lead to distrust "elitist experts" on topics and the media feels compelled to show "both sides" of a story even when one side is complete and utter cr@p. The anti-climate change lobby will dismiss climatologists because they are "so called" experts, but I'd dare ONE of them say they'd rather fly in a plane piloted by a science fiction author rather than by an "elite" pilot because they distrust "elite experts". Or have their life threatening surgery performed by someone with "the common sense of 'real America'" rather than an "elite" doctor who happens to be an expert in the field. It's really close to being insane...

One shouldn't believe someone just because they're an "expert" but equally it's probably not a good idea to dismiss someone who *is* an expert without good cause. And when the vast majority of experts claim something's probably true, you'd better have a VERY good cause.

It's amazing that we've found ourselves with such a lack of ability to understand complex scientific issues... And in a word that's heavily driven by complex scientific issues, it's gonna bit is in the rear sooner or later.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a well documented problem. Unfortunately, the scope of our impact on the globe has reached the point that "the commons", basically, at this point equals the entire planet.

Valete,

JohnS

It's amazing that we've found ourselves with such a lack of ability to understand complex scientific issues... And in a word that's heavily driven by complex scientific issues, it's gonna bit is in the rear sooner or later.

We're talking about a country in which a majority of its citizens still don't believe in evolution. What part of this failure to understand is surprising?

LordofHats wrote:One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research

If the scientist was simply chasing funding he could take one of the many lucrative 'research' projects funded by the oil industry. Yet instead he takes the much lower and much less reliable pay on offer from government research.

It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

His work is subject to peer review. If his data cannot be replicated by other studies it will be dismissed. That's how science works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Russia caught on fire this year.......Southern California has had the coldest summer in recorded history. ......yit happens!
It be good if we can predict and plan for change....I just don't think we can really ever control it.

Weather and individual elements points of climate across the planet are diverse and largely unpredictable. This does not mean we cannot identify long term global patterns.

These patterns, in turn, are themselves complex, the result of multiple cyclical events. This complexity does not mean we are incapable of identifying these patterns and noting when climate change is outside these patterns. We have done this, and now 97% of climatologists active in the field recognise global warming is real, and is caused by man.

The only issue is the range of possible extent of the change, and what we can do about it.

Monster Rain wrote:I always wonder if maybe getting warmer isn't necessarily bad. I mean, who's to say that we were at an optimal temperature?

Which isn't to say that I think we should pollute all that we want, just a musing I have from time to time. I'm all about conservation. /flameshield

Who's to say... Never mind that literally trillions of dollars of infrastructure have been built on the basis of our current baseline of temperatures and weather patterns. Never mind that vast swaths of applied human knowledge about agricultural practices are based on our current baseline of temperatures and weather patterns. Never mind that, based on some of the best estimates on the historical and current rates of the extinction of species, we are likely in the midst of a die-off as bad as any of the other great extinction events in the Earth's history.

There's no such thing as an "optimal" temperature. Life evolves. Climate change skeptics are, at least correct in pointing out that the climate does change over time. No one denies that. The problem is if you force a change in the baseline too fast you are likely to cause massive disruption across the entire system and to think that we, as the alpha animals on the planet, will somehow not be impacted by that is amazing hubris. There's absolutely no doubt that we are currently in the midst of a massive, and uncontrolled, experiment in what happens to a dynamically stable biosphere (one which, to the best of our knowledge, seems to have quite a few more potential feedback loops which favor increasing temperatures than those which potentially favor decreasing temperatures) when you dramatically change the composition of one of the key systems which moderate temperatures.

There are other factors which drive the climate. There's absolutely no doubt about that either. That's the beauty of a dynamically stable system like the climate. You can push quite a bit and the system may well adjust and regain it's stability. You may also, however, knock it into a new stable state. That's happened in the past as well. The human and capital costs (never mind the biodiversity costs) that would be imposed by mankind's being forced to adapt to a new stable state would make any previous disaster in human history look like nothing. And it'll happen in slow-motion (by our standards) so the deniers and skeptics will be able to continue to point out, "it's just the weather...".

Hey, and for the record, for at least the next century or so, the Russians, Canadians, and Greenlanders probably have a lot to gain from raising the global temperature a few degrees... Pity about all the other folks who'll be hammered by it.

Oh, and one of the key data trends to watch is the global average temperature of the oceans, even more so than the atmosphere. If the oceans are starting to significantly warm, then we have real problems no matter what the cause. The oceans are a far (by orders of magnitude) large heat sink than the atmosphere. Good data on global ocean temperatures is really just starting to come in, there's still quite a bit of controversy over the data, and there's not -yet- the cross-field breadth of temperature proxies as have been found in the atmospheric sciences. But the early data does not look good at all from what I've seen.

Guess with that, I'd better it shut down for the night...

Valete,

JohnS

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

well scientists are what we've got. my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

I can think of a couple potential replacements.
radio talk show nutjobs.
corporate spokesmen.
astrologers.
spirits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:The climate is changing? Yeah is does that. It be weird if it didn't change. It's not new, it always changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
http://www.youaskandy.com/questions-answers/30-article-series-1970/12544-was-the-sahara-really-once-a-jungle.html

I think environmentalists are right we should protect the earth when we can. But not out of some idea that we really effect the earth or the climate. I just don't think we need to be sloppy pigs with everything.

Russia caught on fire this year.......Southern California has had the coldest summer in recorded history. ......yit happens!
It be good if we can predict and plan for change....I just don't think we can really ever control it.

there's something like 7 billion people on the planet. its got to be having an effect.
right now humans are *the* ecological fact on the planet. second to the sun.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

well scientists are what we've got. my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

The other scientists?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

Who says they have to believe anyone?

Who knows. Maybe all the people on both sides are wrong and it's really the Eldar trying to wipe us out before the Imperium rises to glorious power!

cygnus
agree 100%

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

Who says they have to believe anyone?

Who knows. Maybe all the people on both sides are wrong and it's really the Eldar trying to wipe us out before the Imperium rises to glorious power!

Be silent, my kin!

The mon-keigh must not be made aware of their doom!

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Lord
yeah at the end of the day I guess its possible that they're in conspiracy with each other. It just doesnt seem all that likely. So I agree w you there.

I don't really think they're wrong. I do think they grandly exaggerate how serious the problem is and make claims from a state of ignorance because they want them to be true regardless of whether or not they can be proven true, but this is a criticism I hold of modern science in general especially in fields where a lot of assuming goes on.

well scientists are what we've got. my question to anyone who doesnt believe what they're saying is
"ok. then who do you believe?"

The other scientists?

the scientific debate is pretty much over. you'll say well there are dissenters. not every scientist agrees. yes thats true. there are always dissenters. Graham Hancock thinks aliens from outer space built the pyramids. The other 99 egyptologists think the egyptians did. Graham Hancock could be right, but I wouldnt bet on it. same situation here. If 100 guys get together, and 95 of them agree on something and the other 5 disagree, and you have no way of telling whose right and wrong, have no qualifications to participate in the conversation, cant even understand what theyre talkinga bout, you go with the majority. thats just common sense. could the other 5 guys end up being right? sure. its possible. its just not likely.
AF

Monster Rain wrote:Scientists can be bought, just like anyone else. The thing you need to look at with a lot of these "studies" is where the money is coming from to fund them.

A study funded by Exxon/Mobil is probably going to have different findings than one funded by, say, the EPA.

Sadly this is true, however the good thing about Science is that statistics enable us to use meta-analysis to determine how much of science is affected by the "buying" effect, so we can get still get closer to the facts than a shock jock.

That won't stop climate truthers from believing what they like though.

Back to OP's original post.

I think it is a dumb move.

Climate is always changing.
The only way to disrupt that change is to have it not change.

Also skeptics on the whole don't think that there is no climate change; they invariably believe that human cause for warming is overstated, the urban heat island effect and shoddy data analysis are overplaying warming (the famous 'hokey stick'), and the nutjobs advocating for us to deconstruct modern society on the basis of 'in the never never' calamity need a harsh dose of 'wake up to yourself'.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Scientists can be bought, just like anyone else. The thing you need to look at with a lot of these "studies" is where the money is coming from to fund them.

A study funded by Exxon/Mobil is probably going to have different findings than one funded by, say, the EPA.

Sadly this is true, however the good thing about Science is that statistics enable us to use meta-analysis to determine how much of science is affected by the "buying" effect, so we can get still get closer to the facts than a shock jock.

That won't stop climate truthers from believing what they like though.

I absolutely agree with you there.

I just wanted to point out that scientists might be working an angle as well, at times. Not so much as Sean Hannity, most likely.

I just like to remind everyone that no matter what we do, someday this planet will be a ball of frozen rock orbiting a dead sun. Or, depending on who you talk to, will be dragged into the Sun when it turns into a red giant. That's the image that lulls me to sleep every night.

Global Climate Disruption is probably the most accurate description of whats happening around the world.

For the deniers all you have to is get a collection of old people from around the world and ask them how the weather used to be, prety much they will tell them the changes (all slightly biased but still a good example).

You just have to look at the past to see the change, 400 years ago the thames in central london used to freeze over hard enough to have winter fayres on.

Human activity has been very likely in speeding up the climate alterations but climates are gonna change as we come out of the tail end of a ice age.

The climate is changing. This summer was the hottest summer in Japan in the 130 years they've been recording temperatures.

I'm an Iron Hippy. I listen to metal and love nature. I recycle everything. Although I believe pollution is a reason for the Earth being a gak pit in places, I don't think it is THE reason for climate change. The people who are telling you that it is THE reason are also conveniently selling you crap to stop it from happening. In Japan, they've recently been slapping an "eco" sticker on everything. "Buy this water.It's plastic bottle is Eco." Really? I thought it was bottled water. I'll buy this Eco beer instead.

The ice caps on Mars are gone. The surfaces of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have gone through changes too (Jupiter has had some kick ass storms. Check out the Hubble site). I think that the Sun is probably the reason for climate change, not only on Earth but through out the Solar system. Who knows? Maybe Jupiter will turn into a sun like in the movie 2010.

"The Sky is falling, the Sky is falling!"


Ya, I'm participating!

WarOne wrote:The White House science advisor John Holdren wants to use the term Global Climate Disruption rather than Global Warming.

What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

I think he can suck my balls and should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:The White House science advisor John Holdren wants to use the term Global Climate Disruption rather than Global Warming.

What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

I think he can suck my balls and should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

LOL!

thankyou for your insightful commentary frazzled....

I agree with Frazzled, this name changing is really starting to piss me off. Just call it global warming.

Let the scientists call it a scientific name.

The rest of us can call it Change.

Yeaha, we're all gonna die!
Planet saved!

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

One could say the scientist has ulterior motive in making a big deal out of nothing. After all, he needs more $$$ for his research It's not really that far fetched for me to believe a scientist would fudge numbers to get the result they wanted out of their research, especially when using computer models to generate those results.

That aside though, the radio host is probably wrong

the work of scientists is subject to review by other professionals.
the work of talk show hosts is subject to review only by.... ditto heads.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiks
the scientists agree. its pretty clear. the problem is politics yes, but the politicians arent influencing the scientific debate. the scientific debate has been over for a while now. what limbaugh and guys like him say isnt that the science is unclear - they say scientists cant be trusted.

well... my question to them would be.... errr.... if you dont trust climate scientists to tell you whether climate change is real or not.... who do you trust? the all knowing rush? these guys are a joke that's all. just a joke.

Like how scientists used to tell you smoking wasn't harmful. There has been data collected on how the more extreme the claim of danger the higher the funding the scientists got. When a scientist tells a politician, "we don't think anything is wrong but we want to study it." how much money do you think they get?

Also how do you explain the people in the rest of the world who are wary of climate science when they don't have rush talking to them?

Brock

I'm not sure scientists ever said cigarette smoking is good. If you think its bad can I ask you why? Because a scientist told you. Even if they were wrong in the past you believe what they're saying now. If you want a different example look at your computer. Do you have any idea how many things they had to be right about in order to create it? Look at your car. Do you have any idea how complex an internal combustion engine is? We've put satellites in space, travelled thousands of miles below the ocean surface.... how? Science.

How many satellites have radio talk show hosts put into space? Zippo. How many operations have they performed? Zippo. How many times have they split an atom? Zippo. Brock you need to get real. Scientists have the credentials. They've done the study. You dont know anything about their research methods or the results of those methods except what they tell you. You looking it up on wikipedia just doesnt compare to a real scientist doing real experiments.

And I especially love the charge about needing funding. Is it corrupt scientists who want a few hundred thousand or a few million dollars that we should be worried about? Or corporations that stand to lose billions of dollars in taxes if it turns out to be real? Because you can bet they're the ones who will be taxed to fix it. Its not the scientist that has the motivation to lie to you - it the CEO and his patsy clown stooges Limbaugh Beck Coulter etc. Dont be a zombie. The world has enough of those. Look around you. Scientists, not radio nut bags, make your world possible. When they tell you the world is heating up - Believe them.
AF

WarOne wrote:The White House science advisor John Holdren wants to use the term Global Climate Disruption rather than Global Warming.

What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

I've been a weather forecaster for 9 years in the USAF. I've forecasted across the entire world. Continental US, North Pacific, Central Asia, Australia, you name it, I've done it.

I cannot say that I've ever seen definitive evidence to prove whether or not humans are involved in worldwide climate effects, but I do know the dynamics of the atmosphere. I do know that the energy involved in a single thunderstorm more then eclipses that of the Hiroshima bomb.

I believe that the human impact is inconsequential. That the psuedo-science of AGW, is at it's core humanity trying to say it matters.
When really... it doesn't.

As for the White Houses thing, it's the same thing as the War on Terror... Oh, I'm sorry. The Overseas Contigency Operation. Political grandstanding. Nothing more.

Is there a particular bit of the chain of theory which you disbelieve?

djones
there are about 7 billion people on the planet. and you really think the human impact is minimal? Just think of all the beer cans thrown away every day by people in this country alone.
AF

6 billion. Well, 6.7.

Regardless, we shouldn't be asking the question "Is the climate changing?" It plainly is. We should asking the question "Is the climate changing into something beneficial?"

well in as much as a couple foot rise in the sea level will swallow thousands of acres of arable land the answer has to be no. Almost everything along the northern coast and eastern coast of the gulf of mexico will disappear, for instance. The region could only be saved through massive public works projects ala the dutch.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:djones
there are about 7 billion people on the planet. and you really think the human impact is minimal? Just think of all the beer cans thrown away every day by people in this country alone.
AF

I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well in as much as a couple foot rise in the sea level will swallow thousands of acres of arable land the answer has to be no. Almost everything along the northern coast and eastern coast of the gulf of mexico will disappear, for instance. The region could only be saved through massive public works projects ala the dutch.
AF

Then I guess it is a good thing that sea ice is expanding.

And global warming isn't what we need to be afraid of. The amount of arable land would actually increase in the event of warming. What we need to fear is global cooling. Two main reasons, less arable land, and less atmospheric CO2 with it being trapped in the expanding glaciers, which means less ability to sustain agriculture.

We're not really at great need for arable land (Sub-Saharan Africa), and warming temps + rising water = new arable land.

And the prediction of several feet? We've sustained a rise of an average of 1.8mm a year over the last century. That is pretty negligable. Not to mention there has been no measurable acceleration in the rise during that time frame.

Look, the "science" behind AGW is shoddy at best. The pushers behind it are taking weak data, drawing conclusions, and calling it fact. It's a process that has been accomplished horribly, and should be laughed at by the scientific community. The problem is that it is a trillion dollar cash cow. There is so much money involved that it's ridiculous. Look at Al Gore. The man has made millions off of this, and it's obvious he doesn't buy what he's selling because he wastes more energy himself than most small towns.

The IPCC has been thoroughly debunked because it was BS work that was put into it, and the more and more digging that is done into this thing, turns up more and more dirt, cut corners, and shoddy work. It's ridiculous that this "science" has gotten the credence that it does.

Abbadon, when I made reference before to how much energy a single storm puts out, I was trying to give you a glimpse of just how unbelievably massive and dynamic our atmosphere is. We have thousands of thunderstorms occur around the world daily. Massive ocean currents pushing trillions of tons of water. Jet streams moving continental sized air masses around the world. Hurricanes, typhoons, El Nino, etc...

I've been in this career my whole adult life, and it still baffles me today just how unebelievably huge and complex this system is. We cannot yet write computer models that can accurately forecast to within two degrees what the temperature will be in a week. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that they can create models accurate enough to drive laws, that tell us whats going to happen with that unebelievably huge engine, down to a single degree, within a hundred years.

The prediction of several feet was made n light of 50-60 years. That hasn't passed yet.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is there a particular bit of the chain of theory which you disbelieve?

I am genuinely interested to know.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is there a particular bit of the chain of theory which you disbelieve?

I am genuinely interested to know.

Are you referring to AGW as a whole?

I had in mind the CO2 theory but clearly you know what out of the whole shebang it is that you find to be false.

Kilkrazy wrote:I had in mind the CO2 theory but clearly you know what out of the whole shebang it is that you find to be false.

Hardly, I'm not a climatologist. I deal with micro-scale weather, not long-term macro.

But I do know poor scientific work when I see it. Such as AGW pushers completely ignoring the Solar aspect. Or the last five years of these people latching onto Katrina and harping on about how every tropical season since then was going to be "above average" when it's been remarkabely below average. How the winter we had just last year destroyed an entire decades worth of heating. Or the fact that many astronomers are forecasting sun conditions to be identical to what led to the last little ice age, starting in a few years.

The science is weak. We don't know half as much as we think we do, and we're firing half cocked on it. Our Democrat controlled government in an effort to pander to these people are trying to enforce laws based on this weak science that very well may cause irreperable damage to our economy.

Look, when you can lay this down in front of me and truly say it is fact, then we can say ok, lets do something about it. But the truth of the matter is that no one can. We do not know enough. It is as plain and simple as that.

Predictions are only 'laid down' after the fact. Hence the fervency.

djones520 wrote:And the prediction of several feet? We've sustained a rise of an average of 1.8mm a year over the last century. That is pretty negligable. Not to mention there has been no measurable acceleration in the rise during that time frame.

part of the difficulty of studying climate change is that record keeping is recent and the time scales involved are potentially vast. Additionally the average rate of change in the sea level may not be the key figure, but rather the rate of change in that rise. If that rate is accelerating then it indicates that there is a problem and that we ought to be concerned.

djones520 wrote:
Look, the "science" behind AGW is shoddy at best. The pushers behind it are taking weak data, drawing conclusions, and calling it fact. It's a process that has been accomplished horribly, and should be laughed at by the scientific community. The problem is that it is a trillion dollar cash cow. There is so much money involved that it's ridiculous. Look at Al Gore. The man has made millions off of this, and it's obvious he doesn't buy what he's selling because he wastes more energy himself than most small towns.

whether Al Goreis a hypocrite or not really doesnt matter, so I'll just pass over that as an irrelevant ad hominem attack. What matters is the science.
If you think the science is bad, then my question to you is: whats your training? where did you get your phd? what experiments have you performed? what data have you collected? what scientific journal has published the results of your research? If your answer to these questions is a big zippo then, politely, be quiet. You dont know anything about it and shouldnt act like you do. If you do have some substantial answers to those questions, then lets hear them, and lets hear why, based on science - not grant money, not whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not, not crazy conspiracy theories - why, based on science, you disagree.

Yes its possible the whole thing is a swindle. Its also possible that corporations that stand to lose billions of dollars in taxes to clean up their own mess are throwing out disinformation in order to protect their own interests. Its possible that republican stooges are stumping for their corporate masters on the radio day in and day out. If you really think money is motivating the debate, then who stands to gain or lose more? the scientists or the corporations?

djones520 wrote:
The IPCC has been thoroughly debunked because it was BS work that was put into it, and the more and more digging that is done into this thing, turns up more and more dirt, cut corners, and shoddy work. It's ridiculous that this "science" has gotten the credence that it does.

debunked by who?

djones520 wrote:
Abbadon, when I made reference before to how much energy a single storm puts out, I was trying to give you a glimpse of just how unbelievably massive and dynamic our atmosphere is. We have thousands of thunderstorms occur around the world daily. Massive ocean currents pushing trillions of tons of water. Jet streams moving continental sized air masses around the world. Hurricanes, typhoons, El Nino, etc...

I've been in this career my whole adult life, and it still baffles me today just how unebelievably huge and complex this system is. We cannot yet write computer models that can accurately forecast to within two degrees what the temperature will be in a week. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that they can create models accurate enough to drive laws, that tell us whats going to happen with that unebelievably huge engine, down to a single degree, within a hundred years.

No we cant model the climate. Not yet. Climatology is a new science these things take time. But if you agree that CO2, when present in sufficient quantities in the atmosphere, has the effect of permitting light and heat energy in but preventing it from getting out, and you also agree that CO2 gas is a byproduct of respiration of animal life as well as of industrial production, and, on top of that, you agree that the trees that absorb that CO2 are less common then they were, say, a thousand years ago, then it follows, as day follows night, that the earth is getting warmer. As a student of history (not of climatology) I can tell you that the deforestation of the plant is real - the entire eastern sea board of this country, all the way up to the Apalachains, used to be covered with trees. Much of the land beyond that, up to the Mississippi valley, was another gigantic forest. Now what is it? farm land, cities, roads, etc. I believe you when you say that there is a vast amount of energy at work in the weather patterns of the planet. But you also need to recognize that the presence of nearly 7 billion humans producing and consuming millions upon millions of tons of manufactured goods daily is not insignificant. The energy that they consume, the CO2 that they give off, the energy that goes into creating the material goods on which their lives are based, and the waste products they discard, all combine to make human presence *the* ecological fact on the planet, second only to *the sun.*
AF

Careful there Jones. I hear disagreeing with <insert PC term> can get weather forecasters fired

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:And the prediction of several feet? We've sustained a rise of an average of 1.8mm a year over the last century. That is pretty negligable. Not to mention there has been no measurable acceleration in the rise during that time frame.

part of the difficulty of studying climate change is that record keeping is recent and the time scales involved are potentially vast. Additionally the average rate of change in the sea level may not be the key figure, but rather the rate of change in that rise. If that rate is accelerating then it indicates that there is a problem and that we ought to be concerned.

Didn't he just tell you there was no measurable acceleration in the rate.

abaddonfidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
Look, the "science" behind AGW is shoddy at best. The pushers behind it are taking weak data, drawing conclusions, and calling it fact. It's a process that has been accomplished horribly, and should be laughed at by the scientific community. The problem is that it is a trillion dollar cash cow. There is so much money involved that it's ridiculous. Look at Al Gore. The man has made millions off of this, and it's obvious he doesn't buy what he's selling because he wastes more energy himself than most small towns.

whether Al Goreis a hypocrite or not really doesnt matter, so I'll just pass over that as an irrelevant ad hominem attack. What matters is the science.
If you think the science is bad, then my question to you is: whats your training? where did you get your phd? what experiments have you performed? what data have you collected? what scientific journal has published the results of your research? If your answer to these questions is a big zippo then, politely, be quiet. You dont know anything about it and shouldnt act like you do. If you do have some substantial answers to those questions, then lets hear them, and lets hear why, based on science - not grant money, not whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not, not crazy conspiracy theories - why, based on science, you disagree.

he doesn't need training. There are plenty of actual scientists that disagree with AGW.

abaddonfidelis wrote:
Yes its possible the whole thing is a swindle. Its also possible that corporations that stand to lose billions of dollars in taxes to clean up their own mess are throwing out disinformation in order to protect their own interests. Its possible that republican stooges are stumping for their corporate masters on the radio day in and day out. If you really think money is motivating the debate, then who stands to gain or lose more? the scientists or the corporations?

You do realise that not all corporations are making money on oil. The "green" industry is making billions of dollars also.

abaddonfidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
The IPCC has been thoroughly debunked because it was BS work that was put into it, and the more and more digging that is done into this thing, turns up more and more dirt, cut corners, and shoddy work. It's ridiculous that this "science" has gotten the credence that it does.

debunked by who?

By scientists who disagree. Perhaps you should read a bit more and not just accept what you media tells you the science says. Also the ICPP report was found to reference a bunch of non-peer reviewed studies.

abaddonfidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
Abbadon, when I made reference before to how much energy a single storm puts out, I was trying to give you a glimpse of just how unbelievably massive and dynamic our atmosphere is. We have thousands of thunderstorms occur around the world daily. Massive ocean currents pushing trillions of tons of water. Jet streams moving continental sized air masses around the world. Hurricanes, typhoons, El Nino, etc...

I've been in this career my whole adult life, and it still baffles me today just how unebelievably huge and complex this system is. We cannot yet write computer models that can accurately forecast to within two degrees what the temperature will be in a week. There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that they can create models accurate enough to drive laws, that tell us whats going to happen with that unebelievably huge engine, down to a single degree, within a hundred years.

No we cant model the climate. Not yet. Climatology is a new science these things take time. But if you agree that CO2, when present in sufficient quantities in the atmosphere, has the effect of permitting light and heat energy in but preventing it from getting out, and you also agree that CO2 gas is a byproduct of respiration of animal life as well as of industrial production, and, on top of that, you agree that the trees that absorb that CO2 are less common then they were, say, a thousand years ago, then it follows, as day follows night, that the earth is getting warmer. As a student of history (not of climatology) I can tell you that the deforestation of the plant is real - the entire eastern sea board of this country, all the way up to the Apalachains, used to be covered with trees. Much of the land beyond that, up to the Mississippi valley, was another gigantic forest. Now what is it? farm land, cities, roads, etc. I believe you when you say that there is a vast amount of energy at work in the weather patterns of the planet. But you also need to recognize that the presence of nearly 7 billion humans producing and consuming millions upon millions of tons of manufactured goods daily is not insignificant. The energy that they consume, the CO2 that they give off, the energy that goes into creating the material goods on which their lives are based, and the waste products they discard, all combine to make human presence *the* ecological fact on the planet, second only to *the sun.*
AF

There are also plenty of regions that used to not have trees and now have tons of forests. Large portions of our provincial parks used to be sparsely covered and now we have dense forests there. The computer models that have predicted global warming have completely failed to take into account the lack of statistically significant warming since the mid 90's.

Brock
Those scientists are in the minority. If scientists disagree, and you dont know anything about what they're talking about, do you think it makes more sense to go with the majority or with the minority? The truth is that right wing types want to go with the dissenters because theyre protecting the interests of their corporate masters, like good stooges always have and always will. They dont know or care anything about the science.

Who said anything about oil? Every business that polutes would have to pay to clean it up. Do you think they want to do that? No. Its far cheaper to buy a senator or sponsor a radio talk show program.

Which scientists? What are their qualifications? Be Specific.

You really think that our national parks used to be....deserts? farms? what? Look at a map of how many national parks there are right now, and how much area they cover. Put together do they cover an area even 1/10 the size of the whole eastern sea board? The Ohio valley? What about Europe? Do you realize that all of europe north of the Alps was at one time covered with forests? God you climate change deniers are irritating. Did you know that there was recently a proposal to change the name of Glacier National Park? Why? Cause there arent any damn glaciers left in it. They've all melted. I mean its happening right in front of you and you all stick your heads in the sand. Wake up. Your opinions are bought and paid for by CEOs through their patsies Rush Beck Coulter etc. Its scientists, not radio talk show nutjobs, who you ought to be listening to. And the scientific consensus is....

Global warming is real.
AF

Logically it makes no sense to abide by either. It makes sense only to acknowledge that you are ignorant.

And you haven't actually named any scientists when you support global warming. You don't seem to know anything about the subject either. Perhaps you should keep watching MSNBC and listening to what they tell you. Or was the Al Gore documentary enough?

There are plenty of corporations that make money off of selling green energy and products.

I also have no idea what your national parks are like or used to be. I have no idea what Glacier National Park is. I also have never seen more than a 2 min youtube clip of rush, beck or coulter. It is scientists I'm listening to. Perhaps you should actually read the science and then make a decision instead of listening to what the media tells you the scientists are saying.

Neither of you is citing anyone.

dogma wrote:Neither of you is citing anyone.

This is true. That is why I was pointing out how it is absurd for him to ask for the names of the scientists who oppose AGW when he doesn't provide citations for his scientists.

Why are you making appeals to authority at all?

Richard Seager - Columbia University
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-richard-seager.html

Benjamin Santer - Lawrence Livermore Labarotary
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html

John Cristy - University of Alabama
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

Paul J Crutzen - Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~air/crutzen/

James Hansen, Columbia University, Goddard Institute for Space Stuies
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/blogs/99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of publishing climatologists — you know, the people who spend their lives studying the science of climate — agree that climate change is happening and that it's because of humans.

That list took me about 5 minutes to compile. I can name as many climate scientists who think climate change is real as I want. The only upward limit is how much time I want to spend on refuting your ridiculous, suicidal, corporate sponsored fantasies.
You all are living in a fantasy world.
Wake up.
AF



Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x70/AnthonyMarr/glacier-melting1941-2008-1.jpg
do you see anything here that represents warming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://geology.com/news/images/glacier-melting.jpg
what about here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
maybe here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe the real problem with convincing people that climate change is real is intellectual smugness? You know - its cool to buck the establishment. you know what you know. Nobody can tell you different. Dont trust the man. Dont trust the guy with the PhD. Screw education. Screw science. Screw knowleldge. You all have a feeling. You know what you know. Rush wouldnt lie to you. He's a real american. Its all a liberal lie. You all are so smart. Here's a gold star for thinking for yourselves. Now doesnt it feel good to be a part of the counter culture?
Drones. Corporate zombies. Think about whose interests your opinions are serving.
Your opinions are bought and paid for. What a joke.
AF

Again with Rush. You should realize that your cultural icons don't mean anything outside of america. You're not the centre of the world, get over it.

I suppose the retreat of the glaciers since the 1850's has nothing to do with us coming out of a little ice age. North America was once covered in glaciers and the have been melting since. They're going to melt and then the earth will eventually cool and we'll have another ice age again where everything is covered in glaciers. From your first link the CO2 levels didn't start to spike until the 1950's is it possible that those glaciers were melting because of a natural warming trend that we were experiencing since the 1850's?

I doubt you'll bother reading anything I post, since you know what you know, but why not start here and then check out the links to other pages.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

If you are a global warming believer and want action (somewhere between 30-50% of westerners depending on the country) then YOU turn off the electricity where it enters your house and live off solar or wind only, refuse to use an internal combustion engine for any transport, stop playing GW games due to the carbon footprint of the transport of your little model men.

I'll continue enjoying a first world lifestyle thank you very much.

When all the 'believers' start acting in a meaningful way instead of trying to foist uberlame rules, taxes and massively expensive energy on everyone (3rd world included) then I'll be happy to play my part.

BrockRitcey wrote:

I doubt you'll bother reading anything I post, since you know what you know, but why not start here and then check out the links to other pages.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Figured someone would, eventually, trot out Anthony Watt... Is Christopher Monckton next? His slides are available on-line, of course so are some very detailed critiques of his "science". Or, for the "it's sort of happening, but we shouldn't worry" crowd, Bjorn Lomborg; available frequently in the OpEd pages of the Wall Street Journal. By all means read Watt's page, but take it with a huge grain of salt. He has a habit of cherry-picking studies that he thinks weaken individual lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming. I'd suggest that folks also read, as a place to start, Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

You can find there discussions of all the various threads of evidence. Their strengths, weaknesses, and common misconceptions about them. But by all means, read more...

On the plus side, Skeptical Science provides links to the actual published material, so those who are willing to actually make the effort can see what the scientists themselves actually said. Not what Watt, Monckton, et al *want* them to have said.

Then if you want, try the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.noaa.gov

Or NASA's website on AGW http://climate.nasa.gov/

Between those, you can get a jump on what the data is actually suggesting.

I'll even avoid directing folks to the Hadley CRU, even thought "Climategate" was hugely overhyped and -in the end- was a lot of, pardon the pun, hot air which, at most, reminded everyone that scientists are humans and do get frustrated from time to time. There are some very in-depth refutations of the Climategate conspiracy theory at Skeptical Science, as well as elsewhere, but AGW skeptics will need to leave the cozy confines of their echo chambers to ever run across them.

If there were just one or two threads of evidence that supported AGW, Watt's approach (and for that matter, stance) might be compelling. But there are a vast number of threads, across multiple scientific disciplines, that support the AGW hypothesis. That's how science works. There is virtually never a *perfect* fit between data and theory, and especially so in the case of complex adaptive systems like the earth's climate. Data is noisy, messy, and (yes!) often needs to be "corrected". There will always be threads to pick at, but until there are enough problems with the data matching the theory, you do not meet the threshold of a Kuhnian paradigm shift. Dissenting minorities are important for scientific progress. They serve as important checks on the process. But they do not represent some "suppressed clique". Scientists understand that. The lay public does not, and that leaves the door open for folks like Watt, Monckton, and for that matter the Inhofe's and Limbaugh's of the world to claim that the "truth is being surpressed". Especially if it's, to borrow Gore's phrase, "inconvenient".

The whole debate is very much akin to New Earth Creationists saying that limitations in radiocarbon dating (well understood and documented, by the way, by the scientists who use it) "prove" that you can't trust geologists about the age of the Earth while ignoring the fact that there are multiple independent means of validating the age of the Earth.

Regardless of what Foxnews, the Wall Street Journal (which will, funnily, admit that AGW is real as their official editorial stance but which will always find room for OpEds from AGW deniers), and a few fringe scientists will tell you, there is a scientific consensus on AGW.

Despite what's been claimed in this thread, the IPCC AR4 was NOT 'refuted' as relying on unpublished studies. A couple of specific sub-sections on the possible impact of AGW were based on, at best, poorly reviewed studies. But that does nothing to refute or undermine the overall findings of AR4.

But, again, for anyone who wants to seriously discuss the topic, please read some of the actual sources of information out there. And, please, take the time to learn how scientists talk and how they couch their evidence. As with all groups of specialized professionals, language is not always used the same way in scientific circles as it is elsewhere.

Valete,

JohnS

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I'll continue enjoying a first world lifestyle thank you very much.

...Since when does Australia count as the First World? I thought it was in the 4.5 Tier of the World Ranking system, beating out the likes of 5th World Nations like Somalia, North Korea, and California...

EDIT: It's funny how people interpret data that suggests the climate does indeed change, that humans can influence climate, and that even without humans that animals and natural forces can influence the climate process.

BrockRitcey wrote:Again with Rush. You should realize that your cultural icons don't mean anything outside of america. You're not the centre of the world, get over it.

I suppose the retreat of the glaciers since the 1850's has nothing to do with us coming out of a little ice age. North America was once covered in glaciers and the have been melting since. They're going to melt and then the earth will eventually cool and we'll have another ice age again where everything is covered in glaciers. From your first link the CO2 levels didn't start to spike until the 1950's is it possible that those glaciers were melting because of a natural warming trend that we were experiencing since the 1850's?

I doubt you'll bother reading anything I post, since you know what you know, but why not start here and then check out the links to other pages.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Do you agree that atmospheric co2 has the effect of allowing light and heat energy in but hindering it's escape?
Do you agree that co2 is a byproduct both of animal respiration and of industrial production?
Do you agree that there are close to 7 billion people on the planet?
Do you agree that the last 200 years has seen a tremendous growth in industrial production?
If so then it follows as day follows night that climate change is real and that humans are the cause.
If you don't agree, then what specifically do you disagree with and why? What's your training? Where did you get your phd?

Anyway I don't want to see anymore nonsense about how Im not citing anyone to back up my claims. I recognize that I don't have the training to evaluate the data independently - that's why I defer to the scientific consensus. If you don't have that training, then why don't you?

I really like the discussions on global warming/climate change as it amazes me how people focus on some data and ignore or put less emphasis on other data.
For me its about looking back through the real long term data (tree rings, ice cores, fossils etc) and also modern measurements.

The earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for many thousands of years.
Human interference has led to an increase in "green house gases" (although the argument of 6billion humans etc is not balanced as many animals have seen a dramatic decline in numbers due to humans even extinction)
the earths orbit around the sun and the suns emmisions are hugely important and variable elements to this argument (look at the little ice age for example) lets be honest which would have a bigger effect on the planet 6 billion fossil burning humans or a 1% change in solar emmisions (if you say humans you are deluded)
once global warming melts enough ice the warm currents in the atlantic and pacific that keep many areas warm will slow/stop and the next ice age/mini ace age will be here and we will be discussing global cooling and how desserts are turning to forests and forests to deserts.

Global warming is happening!
humans do impact on it!
Global cooling will happen!
solar system changes/impacts have more effect than humans!
humans should be more aware and make efforts to limit there impacts on the planet! (especially the usa - lead by example instead of through your bank accounts)

The Mauna Loa time series data on atmospheric CO2 concentration shows a marked and fairly steady increase since recordings started in 1958.

I don't know if it has any correlation to industrial activity or natural phenomena.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with thousands of smoke stacks belching CO2 into the atmosphere 365 days a year.....

a couple of people brought up ice ages. they happen cyclically its true, but no one knows why. Its kind of blase to dismiss global warming as part of a natural cycle, since no one really understands what drives that cycle.
AF

if people generally understand that the earth has had many warming and cooling phases and that we are now in a warming phase then figures from anytime since the warming started (at the end of the last ice age) are baseless figures. we cant compare them to the last warming cycle because man didnt keep records then and so we dont know if the current trend of gases and temps isnt normal. the nearest we get is ring data and ice core samples etc and even those only go back a few thousand years and that is no doubt not enough to really judge patterns as a few thousand years doesnt give enough timne to see patterns due to the planets tilt, solar emmisions etc

Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm sure it has nothing to do with thousands of smoke stacks belching CO2 into the atmosphere 365 days a year.....

a couple of people brought up ice ages. they happen cyclically its true, but no one knows why. Its kind of blase to dismiss global warming as part of a natural cycle, since no one really understands what drives that cycle.
AF

Also, human life is quite natural, and therefore all the things that go with it (technology) are also quite natural.

The question isn't really about whether or not nature is affecting itself, the question is about whether or not humans are a significant component of nature's affect on itself.

Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

It was way too highbrow anyway.

It makes me think of Anti-Flag, a punk bad that I listen to but agree with upon absolutely nothing.

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Maybe you weren't around, but there was definitely hype back in the day about Global Cooling. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

fox40 wrote:usa - lead by example instead of through your bank accounts

no u

Orkeosaurus wrote:

fox40 wrote:usa - lead by example instead of through your bank accounts

no u

Do they want us to run the world or don't they?

I'm confused.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:amazing... how when climate scientists say
its changing

and republican radio hosts say
no it isnt

how many people prefer to believe the radio host. I mean whats their qualification anyway? What university did they go to? What experiments have they performed? What data have they collected? What research station have they ever visited? People are dumb. honestly.

QFT

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

It was way too highbrow anyway.

It makes me think of Anti-Flag, a punk bad that I listen to but agree with upon absolutely nothing.

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Maybe you weren't around, but there was definitely hype back in the day about Global Cooling. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

I was "around". Be careful about confusing "hype" generated by the media with actual evidence. But I do know that is something the Foxnews crowd (whether you're one or not, I have no idea) have a very hard time doing...

But rather than rely on either of our recollections of what the state of climate science was over 30 years ago, I'd suggest you actually peruse the link... and read some of the material. There was some media coverage of the "coming Ice Age", but if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual evidence of what was published by climatologists in the '70s, it was a very different story. I've heard the claims that there was scientific hype about a coming Ice Age in the '70s. I chose to actually try to find out what evidence exists to back up those claims. To do otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.


Valete,

JohnS

Whenever I read a thread where AF is arguing, I keep expecting him to suggest moving into mine shafts with a ratio of 10 women to 1 man, and that all the women would have to be sexually attractive.

Then I realise he probably isnt, and I am sad :(

Honestly, the worst thing about Global Warming(or whatever the hell the PC crowd want to call it) is the fact that its become a political football, except most politicians dont actually understand anything about it, so just pay people to tell them what they want to hear.

A year ago the man that very nearly became Prime Minister of Australia said that climate change was "absolute crap" ...

cygnnus wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion, but whenever AbaddonFidelis signs himself off AF, it makes me think of Japanese porn.

It was way too highbrow anyway.

It makes me think of Anti-Flag, a punk bad that I listen to but agree with upon absolutely nothing.

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

Maybe you weren't around, but there was definitely hype back in the day about Global Cooling. To suggest otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

I was "around". Be careful about confusing "hype" generated by the media with actual evidence. But I do know that is something the Foxnews crowd (whether you're one or not, I have no idea) have a very hard time doing...

But rather than rely on either of our recollections of what the state of climate science was over 30 years ago, I'd suggest you actually peruse the link... and read some of the material. There was some media coverage of the "coming Ice Age", but if you'd bothered to take a look at the actual evidence of what was published by climatologists in the '70s, it was a very different story. I've heard the claims that there was scientific hype about a coming Ice Age in the '70s. I chose to actually try to find out what evidence exists to back up those claims. To do otherwise is, I'm sorry, base ignorance.

So... What is your point exactly?

Did I say that the proponents of Global Cooling were correct? I wouldn't do that, I have no idea whether they are or not. What would the motive be for a massive media misinformation blitz about Global Cooling?

Though I wouldn't be so quick to just post a link and expect it to be taken as gospel. Behold, the proof of Global Cooling.

http://www.climatecooling.org/

BrockRitcey wrote:Like how scientists used to tell you smoking wasn't harmful. There has been data collected on how the more extreme the claim of danger the higher the funding the scientists got. When a scientist tells a politician, "we don't think anything is wrong but we want to study it." how much money do you think they get?

Also how do you explain the people in the rest of the world who are wary of climate science when they don't have rush talking to them?

In following the reasoning above you're pretty much rejecting science, which is basically the foundation for the modern world.

And Rush is hardly the only guy out there. Climate change is finding resistance because building a global framework to controlling industrial emissions is the kind of thing people really don't like doing. It's easier to pretend it isn't needed. If some clown on the radio is going to tell them that it isn't necessary, plenty of people are going to choose to believe them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Regardless, we shouldn't be asking the question "Is the climate changing?" It plainly is. We should asking the question "Is the climate changing into something beneficial?"

Well, no. We should just spend time to recognise how much of the world's infrastructure in dependant on the current climate patterns. Then we should think about how much it will cost to change to adapt to those patterns, and compare it to the cost of controlling emission. This was done in the Stern Report, and his conclusion was pretty clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:I've been a weather forecaster for 9 years in the USAF. I've forecasted across the entire world. Continental US, North Pacific, Central Asia, Australia, you name it, I've done it.

I cannot say that I've ever seen definitive evidence to prove whether or not humans are involved in worldwide climate effects, but I do know the dynamics of the atmosphere. I do know that the energy involved in a single thunderstorm more then eclipses that of the Hiroshima bomb.

I believe that the human impact is inconsequential. That the psuedo-science of AGW, is at it's core humanity trying to say it matters.

You're accusing them of pseudo-science... you haven't even got any science. You've got a factoid about an a-bomb and a thunderstorm and a whole theory built on that. A factoid dependant on a misunderstanding of the scale of a noteable once-off event and the combined industry of an entire planet over a century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:Look, the "science" behind AGW is shoddy at best. The pushers behind it are taking weak data, drawing conclusions, and calling it fact. It's a process that has been accomplished horribly, and should be laughed at by the scientific community. The problem is that it is a trillion dollar cash cow. There is so much money involved that it's ridiculous.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, if a scientist wanted to make money on the issue, they could take the much higher pay cheques offered by industry. They don't, because not everyone is a mercenary. Your claim makes no sense.

Look at Al Gore. The man has made millions off of this, and it's obvious he doesn't buy what he's selling because he wastes more energy himself than most small towns.

Trying to dismiss science by targetting one guy is terrible science, and given your dislike for climate science you really should hold yourself to a higher standard.

The IPCC has been thoroughly debunked because it was BS work that was put into it, and the more and more digging that is done into this thing, turns up more and more dirt, cut corners, and shoddy work. It's ridiculous that this "science" has gotten the credence that it does.

Some elements of the IPCC were attacked by some parties. To claim it was thoroughly debunked is almost nonsensical.

There is no way in hell you are going to tell me that they can create models accurate enough to drive laws, that tell us whats going to happen with that unebelievably huge engine, down to a single degree, within a hundred years.

There is tremendous complexity in the climate, but that doesn't discount the existance of general rules. A game of football is incredibly complex, it involves thousands, probably millions, of individual physical reactions with the decision making of dozens of humans - we couldn't predict a past the first second's play even if we had near perfect information. And yet, we can still make broad predictions, we can still predict that Manchester Utd are very likely to defeat Gosnells U/11s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:But I do know poor scientific work when I see it. Such as AGW pushers completely ignoring the Solar aspect.

They don't. The multiple solar cycles have been accounted for in climate models. Is it possible the problem here is that you're relying on the terrible media coverage of climate science, and not reading any of the actual research directly?

cygnnus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the 1970s climate scientists believed we were heading into another ice age.

That's quite simply not true. I mean seriously... There are plenty of cases where people can disagree over what the facts actually are without repeating statements that are factually incorrect...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

There are plenty of links in the Skeptical Science page for anyone who doesn't trust them per se...

Now, there was some PRESS hyping of the "coming Ice Age", but it was not based on the overall consensus of the scientific community, even in the 70's.

Valete,

JohnS

I remember that is being an attempted big deal. Life kept getting in the way though. Kind of like now.

Frazzled wrote:I remember that is being an attempted big deal. Life kept getting in the way though. Kind of like now.

That's likely because you're following the debate on climate change through popular media, and expecting it to be a reasonable summation of the general science. It isn't. It results in speculative theories formed by a small number of people in the earliest stages of a new school of science being given lots of exciting headlines, with no regard to the quality of science behind them. It also results in little credit being given to mature theories with a broad level of evidence behind them, even when they have almost universal agreement within the field.

Popular science reporting is there to make you excited. Taking it at face value will result in you believing a lot of nonsense. This might not be a problem if you screen carefully, and end up believing ideologically fitting nonsense.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm sure it has nothing to do with thousands of smoke stacks belching CO2 into the atmosphere 365 days a year.....

a couple of people brought up ice ages. they happen cyclically its true, but no one knows why. Its kind of blase to dismiss global warming as part of a natural cycle, since no one really understands what drives that cycle.
AF

Also, human life is quite natural, and therefore all the things that go with it (technology) are also quite natural.

The question isn't really about whether or not nature is affecting itself, the question is about whether or not humans are a significant component of nature's affect on itself.

how couldnt we be? There's almost 7 billion humans on the planet, on every continent, producing and consuming millions of tons of manufactured goods every day. We produce CO2 in massive quantities both through respiration and through industrial production. We eliminate the things that absorb CO2 through deforrestation. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth get hotter. Therefore humans are driving climate change.

What I want to know from the natural cycle people is - if scientists tell you that there's a natural cycle of climate changes, and then they tell you that right now humans are driving climate change, on what basis do you believe the 1st claim and disbelieve the 2nd? You dont have any qualifications to make an independent assessment; so logically you either accept science as a valid tool for understanding your world, and either practice it yourself or defer to the people who do, in which case you accept both claims, or you reject science as a whole and both claims. Picking and choosing which claims you want to believe, based on the kinds of politics you want to practice, is an exercise in self deception.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:Whenever I read a thread where AF is arguing, I keep expecting him to suggest moving into mine shafts with a ratio of 10 women to 1 man, and that all the women would have to be sexually attractive.

they would of course have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
There would be much time and little to do....
[wouldnt that necessitate the abandonment of the so called male monogmous principle?]
regretably yes.... but it is a sacrifice that is required you know.... for the sake of the human race...

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
how couldnt we be? There's almost 7 billion humans on the planet, on every continent, producing and consuming millions of tons of manufactured goods every day. We produce CO2 in massive quantities both through respiration and through industrial production. We eliminate the things that absorb CO2 through deforrestation. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth get hotter. Therefore humans are driving climate change.

That's not really a sound conclusion given the premises you've set out. It doesn't matter how big any number might be if the context in which it is to be taken is left undefined. For example, trees scrub a lot of CO2 out of the atmospher, but when their role in compared to that of plankton and aquatic algae it looks much less important. That's the point of all the science surrounding this issue, it isn't enough to simply figure out how much CO2 is being dumped into the atmospher, you also have to figure out how much CO2 must be dumped into the atmosphere in order to produce a significant effect on it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
What I want to know from the natural cycle people is - if scientists tell you that there's a natural cycle of climate changes, and then they tell you that right now humans are driving climate change, on what basis do you believe the 1st claim and disbelieve the 2nd?

More to the point, the fact that something is a natural cycle does not preclude the possibility that humans are a causal element in that cycle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

BrockRitcey wrote:Like how scientists used to tell you smoking wasn't harmful. There has been data collected on how the more extreme the claim of danger the higher the funding the scientists got. When a scientist tells a politician, "we don't think anything is wrong but we want to study it." how much money do you think they get?

Also how do you explain the people in the rest of the world who are wary of climate science when they don't have rush talking to them?

In following the reasoning above you're pretty much rejecting science, which is basically the foundation for the modern world.

Its also off to disparage science while citing data collected scientifically.

sebster wrote:
Well, no. We should just spend time to recognise how much of the world's infrastructure in dependant on the current climate patterns. Then we should think about how much it will cost to change to adapt to those patterns, and compare it to the cost of controlling emission. This was done in the Stern Report, and his conclusion was pretty clear.

Sure, and that's how we would go about answering the question "Is the change beneficial?"

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
how couldnt we be? There's almost 7 billion humans on the planet, on every continent, producing and consuming millions of tons of manufactured goods every day. We produce CO2 in massive quantities both through respiration and through industrial production. We eliminate the things that absorb CO2 through deforrestation. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth get hotter. Therefore humans are driving climate change.

That's not really a sound conclusion given the premises you've set out. It doesn't matter how big any number might be if the context in which it is to be taken is left undefined. For example, trees scrub a lot of CO2 out of the atmospher, but when their role in compared to that of plankton and aquatic algae it looks much less important. That's the point of all the science surrounding this issue, it isn't enough to simply figure out how much CO2 is being dumped into the atmospher, you also have to figure out how much CO2 must be dumped into the atmosphere in order to produce a significant effect on it.

thats true but as Ive said I'm not a scientist and those figures are not available to me. The people who are scientists, however, and who have the best access to those figures, where they are known, have overwhelmingly concluded that climate change is real and that humans are driving it. So I think its best to defer to their judgement, which is what I'm arguing for.

The broad outlines of the argument do hold however. No climate scientists will tell you that the impact of trees on the absorbption of CO2 is inconsequential; no historian will disagree that deforrestation is not both real and pervasive; nor will any historian tell you that the number of people on the planet has not grown dramatically over the last 300 years. While I dont know the exact figures or have the scientific training to evaluate them if I did have them, my argument is a summary of the arguments of people who do have the figures (as near as they exist) and who do have the training to evaluate them. Under the circumstances deferring to their evaluation is the only sensible response.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
What I want to know from the natural cycle people is - if scientists tell you that there's a natural cycle of climate changes, and then they tell you that right now humans are driving climate change, on what basis do you believe the 1st claim and disbelieve the 2nd?

More to the point, the fact that something is a natural cycle does not preclude the possibility that humans are a causal element in that cycle.

absolutely. nor is a natural cycle necessarily a benign one. natural climatic processes turned venus into a burning hell (because of a runaway greenhouse effect, incidentally); if such a process were underway here we would not, because it is natural, ignore it.

I agree with the climate change deniers that the earth is very large and it takes alot of activity to impact it; then again its taken us about 200 years of constant industrial production to get where we are, and there are a truly enormous number of people on the planet. In addition to that I dont think they appreciate how much stuff a modern industrial economy produces. Its unprecedented in human history; we have produced more stuff in the last 200 years than in all the thousands of years leading up to 1800. The scale of weather and climate patterns is huge, no doubt; but so is that of human activity. right now humans are the ecological fact on the planet. 2nd only to the sun.
AF




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's something for people who think human activity is too puny to impact global systems. Its a description of the most powerful nuclear device ever exploded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Compared to ww2 nuclear weapons fusion bombs are enormous. Their energy is released in only a single event; not a continuous process spanning 2 centuries.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:No climate scientists will tell you that the impact of trees on the absorbption of CO2 is inconsequential;

Just from the research that I've done in the past, I can tell you that isn't true. In fact, there a few scientists that will you that forests actually make global warming worse due their propensity to suffer periodic forest fires.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
While I dont know the exact figures or have the scientific training to evaluate them if I did have them, my argument is a summary of the arguments of people who do have the figures (as near as they exist) and who do have the training to evaluate them. Under the circumstances deferring to their evaluation is the only sensible response.

Well, there's a difference between granting someone deference, and abdicating al responsibility to understand the science. I'm not an environmental politics guys, but I have done work with it in the past simply because it was an easy way to make my work do double duty late in the term. And, while some of the science involves complicated mathematical modeling, its relatively easy to discern places where the argument is weakly supported. The most commonly mentioned issue being the present inability of climate scientists to produce a theory that obtains good, predictive results. Until they can do that, I'm not inclined to spend all that much time worrying about the issue, as its highly unlikely that any action on the matter will be forthcoming. And, honestly, there is a real sense in which it shouldn't be. There are definitely some serious economic issues that will arise from any climate change legislation, and I'm not sure its fair to ask people to incur those penalties in the absence of a good, sound plan of action.

Well there's no predictive model of war history or politics either, but we are compelled to act in these theaters by the mete fact of their existence. Its possible that climate scientists are wrong - but what if they're right?

Jared Diamond wrote an excellent book called Collapse that tells the stories of human societies that are known to have imploded because of environmental mismanagement. It's not theory - the ruins are there for anyone to see, and the cause of their destruction is pretty plain to see. Cities in the middle of deserts, islands completely devoid of forests, jungle-covered ruins in central America. If it happens on a global scale there's nowhere to go.

Forget that the argument in it's broad outlines is simple, coherent, and backed by mountainsf observational data.

Forget that the people who have dedicated their whole lives to studying the subject are practically screaming from the roof tops that the problem is real and we've got to do something about it

Forget that climate changes detractors are fueled by corporate interests who have billions riding on the outcome of the debate.

Just remember that there's only 1 earth and if we screw it up we won't get another. Isn't that by itself enough to argue for a Proactive response?
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Well there's no predictive model of war history or politics either, but we are compelled to act in these theaters by the mete fact of their existence. Its possible that climate scientists are wrong - but what if they're right?

Jared Diamond wrote an excellent book called Collapse that tells the stories of human societies that are known to have imploded because of environmental mismanagement. It's not theory - the ruins are there for anyone to see, and the cause of their destruction is pretty plain to see. Cities in the middle of deserts, islands completely devoid of forests, jungle-covered ruins in central America. If it happens on a global scale there's nowhere to go.

Forget that the argument in it's broad outlines is simple, coherent, and backed by mountainsf observational data.

Forget that the people who have dedicated their whole lives to studying the subject are practically screaming from the roof tops that the problem is real and we've got to do something about it

Forget that climate changes detractors are fueled by corporate interests who have billions riding on the outcome of the debate.

Just remember that there's only 1 earth and if we screw it up we won't get another. Isn't that by itself enough to argue for a Proactive response?
AF

So do you drive a car?
Is your house powered by solar energy?
Do you buy little plastic toys that are shipped all across the world?
Are you actually living like the world is ending or do you live like everyone else and expect the government to fix it for us?

Brock
Nobody's talking about dismantling the modern idustrial economy. That's obviously impossible. What we're talking about is regulation targetted at those parts of the economy that are having the largest impact.
AF

dogma wrote:Sure, and that's how we would go about answering the question "Is the change beneficial?"

Thing is, haven't we largely answered the question? The exact impacts cannot be known for certain, but we do know that our infrastructure is built around the expectation of certain weather patterns - if those change we have to build entirely new infrastructure. That kind of thing is expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrockRitcey wrote:So do you drive a car?
Is your house powered by solar energy?
Do you buy little plastic toys that are shipped all across the world?
Are you actually living like the world is ending or do you live like everyone else and expect the government to fix it for us?

You've made the assumption that correcting the problem would require every person to stop driving cars, and to stop global trade. It isn't necessary, no-one has claimed anything like that would be necessary, so why have you assumed it?

The point is if you believe that the billions of people spewing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing global warming then why aren't you acting in a way that reduces the amount of CO2 you pollute.

Why do we fret over the climate from the past 300 years? What about the last 300 million years? CO2 levels were much higher in the Mesozioc era. What was the world like? It was mostly tropical and covered in forest. We also had much higher atmospheric levels of oxygen which helped support very large lifeforms (dinosaurs). Oxygen levels are lower now and I don't think dinosaurs could breath very well in our atmosphere.

300 million years ago the Earth produced the vast amounts of Limestone rock we have around the world. Limestone is Calcium Carbonate, CaCO3. CO2 went into this production. You need warm water and lots of it. Right now Limestone is being produced in two small spots on the planet, back then it was produced everywhere. There are more carbon sinks then just trees.

The average person puts 2.3 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per day. That's 7.8 million tons of CO2 each day from humans breathing on Earth. (2.8 billion tons a year - nearly as much as Coal and Petroleum) The incideous truth is as more people live on Earth, could their breathing be what is increasing CO2 levels.?

Next let's put CO2 levels into a more historic context. Just before the Industrial revolution we had atmospheric CO2 levels of about 270 ppm. During the Cretaceous Period (T-Rex time) we had levels of about 1000 ppm. During the Jurassic (Stegosaurus time) we had levels about 1500 ppm. Before that in the Devonian Period ( Age of Fishes - 300 million years ago) we had atmospheric levels of CO2 at close to 3000 ppm.

Don't fret, the World is not coming to an end.

DarthDiggler wrote:Why do we fret over the climate from the past 300 years? What about the last 300 million years? CO2 levels were much higher in the Mesozioc era. What was the world like? It was mostly tropical and covered in forest. We also had much higher atmospheric levels of oxygen which helped support very large lifeforms (dinosaurs). Oxygen levels are lower now and I don't think dinosaurs could breath very well in our atmosphere.

The issue is not the temperature alone. The issue is the rate of change in temperature. While it has been hotter and colder at different times, the rate of temperature change is entirely unprecedented. This is because human industry is entirely unprecedented.

This rate of change is a significant problem, because we have agricultural and industrial infrastructure based around existing weather patterns - the cost of adapting is immense.

The average person puts 2.3 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per day. That's 7.8 million tons of CO2 each day from humans breathing on Earth. (2.8 billion tons a year - nearly as much as Coal and Petroleum) The incideous truth is as more people live on Earth, could their breathing be what is increasing CO2 levels.?

The 2.8 billion tons emitted by humans is trivial compared to the 25 gigatons emmitted through industry each year. Breathing accounts for about 1/10 of all human emissions. The insidious truth is that factoids given without context can only serve to deceive.

We can then add some context to the 25 gigatons produced by humans, which itself is quite small compared to the 440 gigatons produced by animals and plants. Thing is, there are carbon sinks to account for the natural emissions - nature being nature and competition being competition things tend towards equilibrium (there will be ebbs and flows, hence the slow drifts up and down in historic CO2 levels). The point is that the 25 gigatons produced by humans has no natural sink, so every year there's an additional 25 gigatons put out into the atmosphere. Over a decade that's 250 gigatons, and that starts to stack up significantly against the total global emissions.

Next let's put CO2 levels into a more historic context. Just before the Industrial revolution we had atmospheric CO2 levels of about 270 ppm. During the Cretaceous Period (T-Rex time) we had levels of about 1000 ppm. During the Jurassic (Stegosaurus time) we had levels about 1500 ppm. Before that in the Devonian Period ( Age of Fishes - 300 million years ago) we had atmospheric levels of CO2 at close to 3000 ppm.

For the last half a million years CO2 ppm have been between 200 and 300. This has grown in recent times to 380 ppm. A rise over such a short period of time is unprecedented in history.

You mention the Devonian Period, and you're right that CO2 ppm were much higher than we see today. And you'd be aware that those changes occurred over a period of around 10 million years. Change over the course of 10 million years is very different to change over the course of a couple of centuries. The point is not that CO2 have changed over history (well duh) the point is the rate of that change.

Don't fret, the World is not coming to an end.

There's that crazy idea that comes up among so many climate change deniers... that either we're looking at apocalypse or everything is fine. It seems impossible for them to consider there could be anything in between, that climate change could represent an immense cost in resources and increase in hardship for many, but not necessarily an apocalypse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrockRitcey wrote:The point is if you believe that the billions of people spewing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing global warming then why aren't you acting in a way that reduces the amount of CO2 you pollute.

Why did you assume I'm not? You assumed that the only way to reduce emissions was to stop driving and to stop buying any imported goods, and that just isn't true.

sebster wrote:
Thing is, haven't we largely answered the question? The exact impacts cannot be known for certain, but we do know that our infrastructure is built around the expectation of certain weather patterns - if those change we have to build entirely new infrastructure. That kind of thing is expensive.

Sure, but we also have to remember that we've built, and re-built/replaced infrastructure for as long as humanity has existed in a civilized fashion. And, while its certainly been really expensive, its also been spread across a long period of time. The fact that infrastructure must be adapted to circumstance goes pretty much without saying, so at this point it seems like the most significant question regards the speed at which climate change can expected to occur. Unfortunately, as I understand it, that's also one of the most contentious topics in climatology.

When we finally get a sound, predictive model I think we'll see more, and better, action. Until then, and maybe even then, many people will remain unconvinced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Well there's no predictive model of war history or politics either, but we are compelled to act in these theaters by the mete fact of their existence.

Actually, there are quite a few predictive models in war and politics. Regardless, those things have the benefit of playing out over relatively short periods of time. For example, we can easily see, and even reasonably predict with good accuracy, what will happen in most coming elections. Climatology doesn't play out that quickly, and hasn't shown itself able to predict future temperatures with good accuracy.

You should also note that in many instances political and military planners will conclude that he best course of action is to do nothing, so isn't quite correct to presume that dealing with a thing necessarily means doing anything about that thing.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It's not theory - the ruins are there for anyone to see,

It actually is a theory. It is a fact that the various civilizations Diamond discusses collapsed. It is not a fact that they collapsed because of environmental decay. Just about any statement based on the establishment of causal relationships is theoretical.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Forget that the people who have dedicated their whole lives to studying the subject are practically screaming from the roof tops that the problem is real and we've got to do something about it

I'm a member of the Academy, take it from me that people who make their living doing analysis will scream from the rooftops whenever they think they're right. It doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not they are right. Or, for that matter, sufficiently specific in their rightness to offer realistic recommendations for progress.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Just remember that there's only 1 earth and if we screw it up we won't get another. Isn't that by itself enough to argue for a Proactive response?

Ultimately the question has nothing to do with the Earth. The question is really about insuring the survival of as many people as possible, and that doesn't necessarily from a proactive response to environmental regulation. One of my biggest beefs with environmentalist movement is its heavy lean on normative language and concepts. I want to know what will happen to the environment if certain events come to pass, not whether or not someone else feels like it is best called 'damage'.

dogma wrote:Sure, but we also have to remember that we've built, and re-built/replaced infrastructure for as long as humanity has existed in a civilized fashion. And, while its certainly been really expensive, its also been spread across a long period of time. The fact that infrastructure must be adapted to circumstance goes pretty much without saying, so at this point it seems like the most significant question regards the speed at which climate change can expected to occur. Unfortunately, as I understand it, that's also one of the most contentious topics in climatology.

That's a fair point, I was working with the assumption of a significant rate of change, which is the dominant assumption but is still contraversial. One of the problems with having to rehash entirely non-contraversial elements of the debate, such as the existance of warming and the fact that it's caused by man, is that we lack the time to debate the real areas of dispute, such as the rate of change.

When we finally get a sound, predictive model I think we'll see more, and better, action. Until then, and maybe even then, many people will remain unconvinced.

That's assuming the majority of opposition is based on people reviewing the existing models and finding them lacking.

BrockRitcey wrote:The point is if you believe that the billions of people spewing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing global warming then why aren't you acting in a way that reduces the amount of CO2 you pollute.

the point, brock, is that you're missing the point. the point isnt eco terrorism or trying to destroy the modern industrial economy. The point is taking *limited* *achievable* *realistic* steps to curb climate change.

If you're going to be (or actually are) a 14 year old just forget it, ok?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:Why do we fret over the climate from the past 300 years? What about the last 300 million years? CO2 levels were much higher in the Mesozioc era. What was the world like? It was mostly tropical and covered in forest. We also had much higher atmospheric levels of oxygen which helped support very large lifeforms (dinosaurs). Oxygen levels are lower now and I don't think dinosaurs could breath very well in our atmosphere.

300 million years ago the Earth produced the vast amounts of Limestone rock we have around the world. Limestone is Calcium Carbonate, CaCO3. CO2 went into this production. You need warm water and lots of it. Right now Limestone is being produced in two small spots on the planet, back then it was produced everywhere. There are more carbon sinks then just trees.

The average person puts 2.3 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per day. That's 7.8 million tons of CO2 each day from humans breathing on Earth. (2.8 billion tons a year - nearly as much as Coal and Petroleum) The incideous truth is as more people live on Earth, could their breathing be what is increasing CO2 levels.?

Next let's put CO2 levels into a more historic context. Just before the Industrial revolution we had atmospheric CO2 levels of about 270 ppm. During the Cretaceous Period (T-Rex time) we had levels of about 1000 ppm. During the Jurassic (Stegosaurus time) we had levels about 1500 ppm. Before that in the Devonian Period ( Age of Fishes - 300 million years ago) we had atmospheric levels of CO2 at close to 3000 ppm.

Don't fret, the World is not coming to an end.

It could be the end of the world. A runaway green house effect is what makes venus an inhospitable hell hole.
At the very least it will be the end of the 1st world standard of living that you all are taking for granted. There are alot of major cities in this country alone that are right next to the ocean. New York. New Orleans. Los Angeles. Washington DC. Miami. Savannah. Seattle. Most people live on the East or West coast and would be directly affected by climate change. If we have to build a massive set of public works to save those cities it will cost billions of dollars in taxes that, one way or another, either directly or through a decreased standard of living, you will have to pay for. Even if your actual lives arent at stake, your quality of living most definitely is. If you think it's just a bunch of green wak jobs who take it seriously, then look here:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504editors.htm
do you think the pentagon is run by tree huggers?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma

I'm not saying action is always the best thing to do. I'm saying its the best thing to do in this case. As in war and politics one acts when the broad outlines of the problem and its solution are clear and when one wishes to favor one outcome voer another. we want things to stay the same. they're not staying the same. we know why. we can act without major disruptions. we ought to do it.

most people who are climate change deniers are unconvinced bc theyre engaged in massive efforts of self deception. the thought process goes something like this: I dont like hillary, muslims, poor people, or black people. the people who like that stuff - the democrats - say climate change is real, so I'm suspicious. so I look on the internet and find an article, and it confirmed for me what I knew all along - that its all just a conspiracy to ruin america. Its not any more complex than that. The american electroate is dumber than a box of rocks.

About Diamond - no, it's pretty clear what happened on easter island. The whole area used to be covered in forests. they chopped them all down, then they couldnt go fishing anymore, then they starved, then they ate each other, then life on Easter Island sucked permanently for everybody. Thats environmental mismanagement and it couldnt be clearer. Same thing with the Anasazi and in the Middle East. I'll grant you the maya and the greenland colonies are more conjectural but I think it's pretty obvious that civilizations derive their most important resource *food* from that earth, that maintaining enough food production to sustain the population requires sound management, and that in the absence of it a civilization must either import its food from an area that does manage its agriculture wisely or else they will *starve.* As causal relationships go its pretty obvious.

about screaming from the roof tops. Look I'm going to say here what I've said from the beginning: these guys are the scientists, they have the training, if they say it's real you've got to believe them. Unless you want to become a scientist and debunk their theory. By all means have at if that's the plan. Otherwise you have no business second guessing them, you dont have the training.

what will happen if the environment continues to change at the present rate:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504editors.htm
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_effects.html
http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,1620995,00.html

They're all best guesses but the only way to get scientific knowledge is to perform an experiment, which is right now obviously impossible. Predicitive models are still a long ways off. If the disaster gets here before the model is ready, then what? We say oh well we tried? The broad outlines of the problem and its solution are clear. We ought to act.
AF

It is pretty easy to reduce your household energy consumption 20 to 25% by changing light bulbs to low energy type, insulating your loft and some other simple things like that.

Americans have an extra advantage that they can switch to smaller cars more easily than Europeans or Japanese.

Lots of people are doing these things, so don't use the point that they haven't gone to live inside the corpses of woolly mammoths as an excuse to do nothing.

Reducing energy and waste is a good thing and will save money even if you don't believe in or care about globular climate warming change disturbation upset.

Brock's point was that environmentalists want us all to go back to the dark ages in order to save the planet. that's nonsense. I do use energy efficient light bulbs; I do recycle; I am careful of my water consumption; I dont own a loft and therefore cannot insulate it.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Brock's point was that environmentalists want us all to go back to the dark ages in order to save the planet. that's nonsense. I do use energy efficient light bulbs; I do recycle; I am careful of my water consumption; I dont own a loft and therefore cannot insulate it.
AF

Haven't most studies show that recycling usually pollutes more than making the item from scratch.

I also never said that environmentalists want us to go back to the stone age. My point was that lots of people who are worried about global warming don't act like it. There are plenty of alternatives to driving, try a bus or walking or a bike. The point is taking *limited* *achievable* *realistic* individual steps to curb climate change isn't something that global warming alarmists are doing. Until you do something your self you shouldn't be asking other people to do it.

Also since 10% of scientists think that AGW is false, would it not be reasonable to assume that 10% of the general population could come to the same conclusions when presented with the same data?

BrockRitcey wrote:Haven't most studies show that recycling usually pollutes more than making the item from scratch.

No. Studies have shown that some of the more popular methods of recycling paper use more energy than starting with new wood pulp. It's a good thing to keep in mind to temper the idea that any and all kinds of recycling are automatically beneficial. But it really, really isn't the same as the idea that recycling in general pollutes more in general.

I also never said that environmentalists want us to go back to the stone age. My point was that lots of people who are worried about global warming don't act like it. There are plenty of alternatives to driving, try a bus or walking or a bike. The point is taking *limited* *achievable* *realistic* individual steps to curb climate change isn't something that global warming alarmists are doing. Until you do something your self you shouldn't be asking other people to do it.

You asked if people drive a car at all, or purchased just one set of products manufactured overseas. You created a false standard well beyond what most people would be willing or able to achieve, and miles beyond what is actually necessary to start making a difference. You did this because you wanted to claim that people arguing for emission controls are hypocrits.

It's a really poor line of argument.

Also since 10% of scientists think that AGW is false, would it not be reasonable to assume that 10% of the general population could come to the same conclusions when presented with the same data?

The problem there is using 'scientists' as though a particle researcher necessarily had a better understanding of climate research data than some guy on the street. Science is incredibly diverse, and expertise in one field will not give you working knowledge in another. What really matters is what the people actively working in climate change think, and there 97% believe that man is having a marked effect on the climate. I wish that the general debate showed numbers anywhere near 97% agreement. Instead in the general public it hovers around 50-50, and is closely tied to general political affiliation - indicating the cause for belief and disbelief is generally ideological and not based on the science.

No Brock it wouldn't: not anything like 10% of Americans have the training to evaluate the data. AF

I would be interested to know if there is a correlation between political alignment and status of belief in climate change.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be interested to know if there is a correlation between political alignment and status of belief in climate change.

Here's a survey showing Republicans are less likely to believe in global warming at all, and much less likely to believe it is caused by man;
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/828/global-warming


And here's one showing a strong correlation between religious belief and belief in climate change;
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1194/global-warming-belief-by-religion

AbaddonFidelis wrote:No Brock it wouldn't: not anything like 10% of Americans have the training to evaluate the data. AF

It's a good thing I didn't say americans then. Not every county has as many idiots as america. We actually finish highscool and go to college in canada.

BrockRitcey wrote:Not every county has as many idiots as america. We actually finish highscool and go to college in canada.

Why aren't you the smooth talking bigot. Stay classy. Also, you forgot to capitalize the 'A' in America, High School is two words and is also misspelled, and Canada should also be capitalized. When you want to insult someone's education it helps not to spell and sound like an idiot yourself.

BrockRitcey wrote: My point was that lots of people who are worried about global warming don't act like it.

There's also lots that do.

There are plenty of alternatives to driving, try a bus or walking or a bike. The point is taking *limited* *achievable* *realistic* individual steps to curb climate change isn't something that global warming alarmists are doing.

I don't see how you can say that : there's loads of people who don't do X/Y/Z because of concerns for all manner of things.

Also since 10% of scientists think that AGW is false, would it not be reasonable to assume that 10% of the general population could come to the same conclusions when presented with the same data?

Only if you assume that the general population has the same level of understanding of the data and techniques involved.

Not every county has as many idiots as america.

They might well not have as many really smart guys either.

But that's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, so please refrain from making insulting comments about peoples/nationalties please.*



*With the clear and mandated exception of Lichtenstein. Obviously.

BrockRitcey wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:No Brock it wouldn't: not anything like 10% of Americans have the training to evaluate the data. AF

It's a good thing I didn't say americans then. Not every county has as many idiots as america. We actually finish highscool and go to college in canada.

As atman pointed out you arent helping your case any by misspelling "high school."
anyway nonsensical comments are more or less the norm for you so I'm going to just disregard everything you say from this point on. Life's too short to go back and forth with people like you.
AF

BrockRitcey wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:No Brock it wouldn't: not anything like 10% of Americans have the training to evaluate the data. AF

It's a good thing I didn't say americans then. Not every county has as many idiots as america. We actually finish highscool and go to college in canada.

Live the dream. It must suck to have an economy smaller than California's.

If users find other users to be not worth reading, they are advised to quietly apply the Ignore button.