"One of the world's leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are "extremely unhelpful," according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.
The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week's polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.
Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529493,00.html
Alan Carlin has 45 years experience working on the environment and policy. He was purposely supressed by the EPA in the time leading up to the vote on cap and trade. According to him, an evaluation process which should have taken years was condensed into weeks to make the case. Sounds much like: "Bush lied to us".
Here's the claims to the flawed science being used to support the global warming agenda:
"Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.
Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.
The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and "not supported by empirical evidence."
Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that "up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures" could be caused by solar variability.
Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The "Urban Heat Island" effect is considered key to this.
Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period."
"The Obama Administration and new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson were anxious to render a decision on CO2 so as to move forward with the president's agenda. A review process that normally would take years was completed in weeks, contrary to Ms. Jackson's assurances after being nominated saying, "I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."
Despite claims by Jackson and the administration of new transparency supposedly not seen during the Bush administration, emails obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) show a decidedly difference picture. Al McGartland, the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics Director, told a researcher via email that, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
In a statement the EPA said Carlin was not a scientist and not part of the group working on the carbon dioxide issues. However, McGartland told Carlin via email in March that, "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." Further highlighting that Carlin was expected to remain silent, McGartland said, "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
For his part, Carlin has said that he believed McGartland was acting on orders from others higher up in the agency and administration. He told CBSnews.com that, "It was his view [McGartland's] that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else. That was obviously coming from higher levels."
As the president's marquee climate change bill was being heard in the House last week, Republicans attempted to raise a flag in light of this new evidence. The bill however passed and is now in the Senate where Sen. James Inofe, R-Okla, is saying he is going to ensure the full details of the report see the light of the day."
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-EPA-suppresses-report-calling-into-question-global-warming-science
Yep, that damn crazy whack-job Inhofe. I'm glad he's a skeptic and cynic. How can you sit back and not realize that the science of climatology has been at best politicized, and at worst, manipulated to politicize it? If you read nothing but what I put in bold-face, it's obvious that scientists and others who have vast experience are being shunned if they do not back the global warming agenda. Dissention is not being allowed, it would appear. "Sorry we will not include your comments, it does not help our cause".
More reading if you don't find Fox or Examiner credible:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU)
I am left breathless.
Quote from: joiei on July 27, 2009, 07:41:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU)
I am left breathless.
Wow. Someone needs to tighten Dumbkoff's stitches...
Conan, you can't possibly agree to say that gas and oil don't pollute, can you. You ain't drinkin' this KoolAid are you?
???
Quote from: Hoss on July 27, 2009, 11:07:07 PM
Wow. Someone needs to tighten Dumbkoff's stitches...
Conan, you can't possibly agree to say that gas and oil don't pollute, can you. You ain't drinkin' this KoolAid are you?
???
Hoss, ostensibly my income over the next 20 years will largely depend on people reducing emissions. I helped develop a technology which gets rid of a nuisance waste gas in NG plants, and cuts overall fuel use and increases air/fuel troughput efficiency. Actually, I'm planning a disappearing act in 10 years to the beautiful Caribbean, but I digress, so perhaps one of my daughers will pick up the torch for the remaining 10 years on that declaration.
I would guess more than anyone else on this forum, I could, and apparently, will benefit the most from this and from stimulus (porkulus) spending which is designed to cut fuel consumption and carbon output. I'm an odd dichotomy, I guess. I will benefit from the government's misguided efforts at rewarding special contributors to their campaigns, but as a taxpayer, I hate to see the fleecing taking place and do just fine without this global warming insanity. I could promote it harder than anyone else because the more hysteria, the more myself and the company I work for and the companies I represent will profit but I don't because the "science" used to promote this hysteria is far from factual and sound (gotta sleep you know).
My company did well before. I hate the concept of what our gov't is doing in wasteful spending, and I'm in a position to sincerely be able to question global warming and the crazy hysteria behind it. It would be crass to speculate how much money "global warming" will enrichen me by, but I do well enough as it is without ripping off the rest of you taxpayers.
Not bragging, just saying: "I don't need it", but I'll take it if they are paying.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2009, 11:50:07 PM
Hoss, ostensibly my income over the next 20 years will largely depend on people reducing emissions. I helped develop a technology which gets rid of a nuisance waste gas in NG plants, and cuts overall fuel use and increases air/fuel troughput efficiency. Actually, I'm planning a disappearing act in 10 years to the beautiful Caribbean, but I digress, so perhaps one of my daughers will pick up the torch for the remaining 10 years on that declaration.
I would guess more than anyone else on this forum, I could, and apparently, will benefit the most from this and from stimulus (porkulus) spending which is designed to cut fuel consumption and carbon output. I'm an odd dichotomy, I guess. I will benefit from the government's misguided efforts at rewarding special contributors to their campaigns, but as a taxpayer, I hate to see the fleecing taking place and do just fine without this global warming insanity. I could promote it harder than anyone else because the more hysteria, the more myself and the company I work for and the companies I represent will profit but I don't because the "science" used to promote this hysteria is far from factual and sound (gotta sleep you know).
My company did well before. I hate the concept of what our gov't is doing in wasteful spending, and I'm in a position to sincerely be able to question global warming and the crazy hysteria behind it. It would be crass to speculate how much money "global warming" will enrichen me by, but I do well enough as it is without ripping off the rest of you taxpayers.
Not bragging, just saying: "I don't need it", but I'll take it if they are paying.
Wow. So, it's sulfer sniffing that did that?
Senator Inhofe is just playing us, kind of like a Borat thing or something; he just wants to see how far he can get people to go with his ideas. At some point all the hidden footage will be made into a movie or something.
Quote from: brianh on July 28, 2009, 04:43:46 PM
Senator Inhofe is just playing us, kind of like a Borat thing or something; he just wants to see how far he can get people to go with his ideas. At some point all the hidden footage will be made into a movie or something.
You are tripping. This is the only road to "power" Jimminy Imhofed has left before he's dead (not that he's not politically done already) . Take the high road with Jesus and squash any opposer's viewpoints with stupidity.
We got what we deserved. Senaturd Malarkey is Oklahoma's white knight in shining armor.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html
Geologist saying that:
1) Humans have no contributed a significant amount of CO2
2) CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere are at the lowest levels they have been at in 500,000,000 years.
3) Ice caps are present in the history of the Earth less than 20% of geological time. Their disappearance should not be surprising.
4) The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly with and without people.
5) Cooling period are associated in human history with famine, disease, and decline. Warming period with prosperity. We should be looking forward to the good times.
- - -
I remain unconvinced. Pollution is bad. Dependence on oil is bad. But I still don't buy into anthropogenic global warming wholeheartedly.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 29, 2009, 09:22:51 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html
Geologist saying that:
1) Humans have no contributed a significant amount of CO2
2) CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere are at the lowest levels they have been at in 500,000,000 years.
3) Ice caps are present in the history of the Earth less than 20% of geological time. Their disappearance should not be surprising.
4) The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly with and without people.
5) Cooling period are associated in human history with famine, disease, and decline. Warming period with prosperity. We should be looking forward to the good times.
- - -
I remain unconvinced. Pollution is bad. Dependence on oil is bad. But I still don't buy into anthropogenic global warming wholeheartedly.
AMEN!
+1
Amen if you pray at the feet of the oil industry....this demon prays at the feet of science....
Environment
Climate change
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns
New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics[/u]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study
" The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases."
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 29, 2009, 09:22:51 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html
Geologist saying that:
1) Humans have no contributed a significant amount of CO2
2) CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere are at the lowest levels they have been at in 500,000,000 years.
3) Ice caps are present in the history of the Earth less than 20% of geological time. Their disappearance should not be surprising.
4) The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly with and without people.
5) Cooling period are associated in human history with famine, disease, and decline. Warming period with prosperity. We should be looking forward to the good times.
- - -
I remain unconvinced. Pollution is bad. Dependence on oil is bad. But I still don't buy into anthropogenic global warming wholeheartedly.
If it weren't for #2, perhaps this person's claims would bear consideration. Given that based on multiple forms of evidence it's a flat out falsehood, though, I'm not inclined to even care what else he's got to say if said geologist can't even accept facts proven by both polar and tropical ice cores, tree ring examination, and other forms of evidence of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
As I've written before, it doesn't matter to me whether or not global warming is actually caused by man (although the evidence is strongly in favor of that conclusion). Nor does it matter to me if during most of geologic time there were no ice caps. (for most of geologic time there was no
life on earth)
What matters to me is that the Earth's climate remain conducive to my species' survival. Arguing about cause is like arguing about why our boat is taking on water rather than starting to bail. Who cares if we ran into an iceberg or if a big wave cracked the hull? We gotta stay afloat regardless!
And warming is only good to a point. It stops being a good thing when it causes massive shifts in precipitation patterns and significant rising in sea levels.
BTW, I don't even care about the polar bears. I care about the disappearance of a large portion of our planet's fresh water resources. We're going to be stuck with energy intensive desalination. It's much cheaper to have glaciers feeding freshwater streams from which we can pump water.
Nathan, how is #2 dead wrong? Based on the best available evidence, CO2 levels are very low. The data also illustrate many heating and cool trends on a micro and macro level, largely not correlated to a change in CO2 levels at that. Again, this is on the macro level of course.
(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif)
I welcome data to the contrary. I know the data in the near term show's a rise in CO2, but in the macro view we are still low in atmospheric CO2.
Again, I'm not espousing this man's theories as my own, but using it as an illustration on why I have yet to adopt man made Global Climate Change wholeheartedly.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 03, 2009, 09:12:33 AM
I welcome data to the contrary. I know the data in the near term show's a rise in CO2, but in the macro view we are still low in atmospheric CO2.
Perhaps you misquoted him, but saying that co2 levels are the lowest they've been in 500,000,000 years is grossly inaccurate given that they are significantly higher than they were a hundred years ago.
And again, I know that co2 levels have historically been higher. Before I was around. Before my
species was around. I want the earth to remain in a condition conducive to my continued existence. Continued co2 increases are detrimental to that. Call me selfish.
Also, it is true that there is not a direct correlation between co2 levels and temperature. It's close, but not direct. There are other variables involved including solar output, atmospheric methane levels, cloud cover, dust cover, and still other effects.
But since we're posting charts. How about the last 550 million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
As you can see, choosing how to represent the data makes an enormous difference. Regardless of scale, the data represented in the chart I reference indicates pretty clearly that a rise in atmospheric co2 correlates reasonably well with rises in temperature and vice versa.
edited to add: blasted SMF doesn't play well with SVG files...
Some people are just meant to run around in circles screaming.
Quote from: nathanm on August 03, 2009, 04:53:19 PM
Perhaps you misquoted him, but saying that co2 levels are the lowest they've been in 500,000,000 years is grossly inaccurate given that they are significantly higher than they were a hundred years ago.
And again, I know that co2 levels have historically been higher. Before I was around. Before my species was around. I want the earth to remain in a condition conducive to my continued existence. Continued co2 increases are detrimental to that. Call me selfish.
Also, it is true that there is not a direct correlation between co2 levels and temperature. It's close, but not direct. There are other variables involved including solar output, atmospheric methane levels, cloud cover, dust cover, and still other effects.
But since we're posting charts. How about the last 550 million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
As you can see, choosing how to represent the data makes an enormous difference. Regardless of scale, the data represented in the chart I reference indicates pretty clearly that a rise in atmospheric co2 correlates reasonably well with rises in temperature and vice versa.
edited to add: blasted SMF doesn't play well with SVG files...
No one can possibly know any of that "for sure". Determining CO2 levels from 500,000 years ago or even 100 years ago is purely based on whether or not current hypothetical criteria scientists use to arrive at this is accurate. The study of climatological data isn't even in it's infancy compared to how long this planet has been around. "Conception" would be a more accurate term for where we are at in studying the climate in detail.
Conan:
Going back many thousands of years they can measure CO2 levels based on bubbles trapped in ice caps. Going back further than that they can use air pockets trapped in rocks. Going back even further than that they have to extrapolate levels from the minerals in rocks. All in all it is fairly accurate.
Nathan:
Ii tried to make it very clear, I am talking about the long term. In the long term planetary perspective CO2 levels rise and fall very dramatically clearly without human interference. I understand and appreciate the temperature correlation with CO2 levels, but at the same time appreciate that human's haven't influenced CO2 levels even on the scale you are talking about. In the last 5,000 years up to the industrial revolution CO2 levels went from ~160ppm to ~275ppm. In 1880 the most reliable measurements put the number at 290ppm. By 1940 the level was measured at 440ppm. After another 70 years of CO2 emissions and further industrialization it is back down to ~380ppm today.
Sometimes temperature rose then CO2. Sometimes the other way around. The micro climate map shows varying correlations with CO2 levels and changes that relate in no way to CO2 changes.
From an abject perspective, the data I've been provided with doesn't prove to me that there is a direct correlation between CO2 increases and a rise in temperature, it doesn't prove that the environment doesn't adjust to fluctuation in CO2 levels, nor can I ascertain that human emissions are significant on the whole.
The atmosphere contains about 3,000 gigatonnes of CO2. Annual emissions are about 27 gigatonnes. Or nearly 1%. I do not know what the absorption rate is or if it increases with the availability of CO2.
(this site: http://co2now.org/, is an environmental site advocating a position [you'll note their graph perspective convincingly starts in 1958]. But it has pretty graphs and quick facts. http://earthtrends.wri.org has raw data available also. )
I'm not arguing that you or other Climate Change people are wrong. I think pollution, including CO2, is a concern. I'm just not entirely convinced of the apocalyptic scenario as the data doesn't paint as clear of a picture for me as most scientific endeavors. It's a huge question (global atmospheric science is hard to replicate), so it is understandable that the puzzle hasn't been solved. I just still looking into it.
Thanks for the frank and non-hostile discussion.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 04, 2009, 10:24:45 AM
Conan:
Going back many thousands of years they can measure CO2 levels based on bubbles trapped in ice caps. Going back further than that they can use air pockets trapped in rocks. Going back even further than that they have to extrapolate levels from the minerals in rocks. All in all it is fairly accurate.
Again, it's only as accurate as the
hypotheses used to determine that gas bubbles trapped in ice is a reflection of atmospheric conditions and that their methods to place an age on said ice is accurate. Based on a current hypothesis, if data seems to relate to that and bear it out, then you could call it accurate. What happens when that hypothesis changes or it's proven entirely wrong? I'm simply pointing out that without live data collection or notes left from our ancestors, you can't say 100% what conditions were half a million years ago. It's simply not possible with 100% certainty and I don't think anyone can even say a percentage of how close or how far off it might be. Those who take our place on the planet will have the benefit of live data collection from our lifetime and will be able to say with certainty (other than equipment errors) what the atmosphere was like in 2009. We can't even do that with 1909, much less 497,901 years before Christ.
Theories and hypotheses change, science is constantly evolving based on new discoveries.
Conan:
The hypotheses is that one layer of snow falls each year and that analysis done on air pockets in the resulting ice correlates to the same testing done today. Counting the layers of snow fall is akin to counting tree rings - it is pretty accurate, they have verified dates with volcanic eruptions going back a couple thousand of years to ensure accuracy (volcanic eruptions leave a clear indication in ice records and are verified in written records from several ancient civilizations). And testing the air pockets, if not contaminated, should be about as accurate as any other atmospheric testing. If there is a flaw in that system, I struggle to see what it may be.
Science is always changing and methods, hypotheses and theories change - but in and of itself that isn't a reason to discredit any of the above.
Al Gore's D.C. home spotted:
(http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c54102/x2_a230f7)
No amount of evidence will convince the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts that they are wrong.
Quote from: jamesrage on February 08, 2010, 12:40:40 PM
No amount of evidence will convince the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts that they are wrong.
Especially now that there is "no amount of evidence!" ;D
Quote from: jamesrage on February 08, 2010, 12:40:40 PM
No amount of evidence will convince the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts that they are wrong.
Self-parody alert.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 08, 2010, 12:55:16 PM
Self-parody alert.
I'm waiting for Sauerkraut to chime in with his 'let's drill baby drill' and 'global warming is a hoax I heart Inhofe' stuff...
Quote from: guido911 on February 08, 2010, 09:52:48 AM
Al Gore's D.C. home spotted:
(http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c54102/x2_a230f7)
Perhaps he moved to McMurdo in Antarcita. Just had a friend come back from there, picked him up from the airport saturday, they say its been warmer than usual... cue pics of scientists in T-shirts lol. Remember too, the US represents about 5% of the surface of the earth. It could freeze over permanently and the earth on average could still be warming. We have to look at these things globally. Colder here, hotter there aint gonna tell the whole story. However,,, a warming earth can mean more moisture which can mean more snow. I remember reading in the 90s studies that showed areas like NY and DC would likely get lots more snow as the earth warmed. Dont have a clue as to if those old studies were right, but just sayin.
If the predictions come from a computer they have to be right. ;)
My cynicism toward man-made global warming er, climate change would be a whole lot less if the political establishment had not glommed onto it as a way to raise money and create an ever-maddening set of regulations.
I like back-up plans.
Using all our resources to stop man-made global warming / global climate change ignores the possibility that we cannot stop it and need to use some of those resources to learn to adapt.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 08, 2010, 08:26:27 PM
I like back-up plans.
Using all our resources to stop man-made global warming / global climate change ignores the possibility that we cannot stop it and need to use some of those resources to learn to adapt.
+10
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 08, 2010, 08:26:27 PM
I like back-up plans.
Using all our resources to stop man-made global warming / global climate change ignores the possibility that we cannot stop it and need to use some of those resources to learn to adapt.
1. We are not using "all our resources" to stop it.
2. The actions that are being taken will result in less dependance on foreign oil and less money in the pockets of the anti-American Saudi trust fund babies who could use that money to finance the next round of terrorist attacks. I think we can call that a win-win... except for the oil-uber-alles lobby....
Quote from: USRufnex on February 09, 2010, 11:55:40 AM
1. We are not using "all our resources" to stop it.
2. The actions that are being taken will result in less dependance on foreign oil and less money in the pockets of the anti-American Saudi trust fund babies who could use that money to finance the next round of terrorist attacks. I think we can call that a win-win... except for the oil-uber-alles lobby....
I knew I could count on you to tote the mass media Algorist line.
Welcome back from vacation or wherever you were. :)
More snow equals proof of global warming? Here's a funny compilation video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-demand-urgent-action/
I guess every weather phenomenon is proof of global warming.
Quote from: guido911 on February 10, 2010, 04:54:40 PM
More snow equals proof of global warming? Here's a funny compilation video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-demand-urgent-action/
I guess every weather phenomenon is proof of global warming.
Just as absurd as every weather phenomenon being proof against it. Just because you can point to loons on one side of the issue, doesnt mean there arent loons on the other or that either side is right or wrong. Though if your commenting on my statement about how some models show more snow in certain areas,,, those videos did little to refute that possibility (the only exception being the first senators comments) for those same models did show less in areas of the western US (which most of those snips also talked about), and more snow in parts of the upper east. And again, yes a year or two of anecdotes one way or the other, cant be held up as "proof" of anything. Examples of what could come, sure, proof no. Its still hard to tell exactly what will happen in each area of the world, (on a whole it will get warmer) let alone in tiny sections of a comparatively small US. But that change of some sort will happen, and fairly rapidly due to human causes, is little in doubt. Not that rapid change couldnt happen anyway,,, just sayin lol. An asteroid could hit us for all we know lol.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2010, 12:20:13 PM
I knew I could count on you to tote the mass media Algorist line.
Welcome back from vacation or wherever you were. :)
Except I never voted for Al Gore.
I just don't believe Global Warming, Climate Change, and Evolution are "hoaxes"
Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report sayshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800041.html
...despite a wealth of scientific evidence, the American public is increasingly skeptical that climate change is happening at all. That disconnect is particularly important this year as the Obama administration and its allies in Congress seek to enact legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions and revamp the nation's energy supply.
"It's very hard for any of us to grasp how this larger warming trend is happening when we're still having wintry weather," said National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt, the new report's lead writer.
The study charts how climate change is linked to more heavy precipitation, including intense snowstorms like the one that blanketed the D.C. area last month. The Great Lakes region is also experiencing more snow, the report says, because during warmer winters, "the lakes are less likely to freeze over or are freezing later [and] surface water evaporation is recharging the atmosphere with moisture."
Quote from: USRufnex on February 10, 2010, 07:07:02 PM
Except I never voted for Al Gore.
I just don't believe Global Warming, Climate Change, and Evolution are "hoaxes"
Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800041.html
...despite a wealth of scientific evidence, the American public is increasingly skeptical that climate change is happening at all. That disconnect is particularly important this year as the Obama administration and its allies in Congress seek to enact legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions and revamp the nation's energy supply.
"It's very hard for any of us to grasp how this larger warming trend is happening when we're still having wintry weather," said National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt, the new report's lead writer.
The study charts how climate change is linked to more heavy precipitation, including intense snowstorms like the one that blanketed the D.C. area last month. The Great Lakes region is also experiencing more snow, the report says, because during warmer winters, "the lakes are less likely to freeze over or are freezing later [and] surface water evaporation is recharging the atmosphere with moisture."
I didn't say you
voted for Al Gore, just that you are toting the doctrine. You may have investigated this more than some of us. At some point though, you have accepted the analysis of others. The popular analysis has become questioned more in the last few years and questioned by by scientists involved in climate research. The irrefutable evidence is no longer irrefutable. Science, especially inexact science, is that way.
Mathematical (and therefore computer) models include simplifying assumptions. It's usually necessary to obtain a solution. Mostly the simplifications involve "insignificant terms". Sometimes they turn out to not be insignificant. Climate change models to date cannot reliably determine events which have already happened without adjustment factors. This is somewhat like multiplying your incorrect answer by zero and adding the correct answer. (My source for this is, unfortunately, my deceased uncle. He was very interested in Global warming/climate change and had the time to do the research.)
Assuming the CO2 scare is correct, Cap and Trade should be Cap. Period. CO2 from developing countries is no less "dangerous" than if it's from the US. If CO2 cap fits the US, it fits the world. Help them achieve it. This is also assuming that CO2 is the main culprit and has no significant accomplices like water vapor. Savings of CO2 in the US should be just as valuable as CO2 savings as say in India. The article link and excerpt below from a Light Rail Now article highlights some of the injustice of Cap & Trade.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_bog_2009-09a.htm
"Unfortunately, the first thing to understand in regard to this issue is that these kinds of transit successes in advanced countries like the USA are ineligible for consideration. The process of issuing Certificates of Emissions Reduction, or CERs, is overseen through a program called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and under its procedures, neither transit systems nor cities in advanced industrialized countries (such as those of the USA and Europe) can earn CERs (commonly called "carbon credits") for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Such countires, including the USA, are classified as "Annex 1 & 2" countries – i.e., advanced industrial nations. Only developing countries can earn the credits (CERs) and thus be in a position to sell them.
Thus, since only Third World countries can qualify for "carbon credits" (CERs), this restriction eliminates from eligibility any rail transit systems in advanced countries, even where studies have shown (or could be carried out to demonstrate) significant reductions in "baseline" motor vehicle traffic (and thus emissions) in specific corridors (remember, "baseline" – considered in the CDM's evaluation of a project – means the level that would exist in the absence of the transit service)."
Cap and trade is not about CO2, it's about money.
I will agree that a few seasons and some out of character storms or lack of storms are not a definitive sign that a trend has stopped, or started. Weren't we having global cooling in the 70s? Climate change is inevitable. Man's contribution may or may not be significant enough to be a controlling factor. If it is not a controlling factor, stopping all man's contributions will not stop the change. That does not mean that I am in favor of wanton wasting of energy. (Except you better not make me drive a weenie vehicle. Doesn't have to be petroleum powered, just fun to drive.) I believe I have made enough statements on this forum to show that I am in favor of public transit, especially rail, where it can be effectively utilized.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 08, 2010, 12:55:16 PM
Self-parody alert.
Self parody alert? How does making that statement prove that religious nuts in the man made global warming fairy religion are right?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 10, 2010, 08:13:35 PM
I didn't say you voted for Al Gore, just that you are toting the doctrine. You may have investigated this more than some of us. At some point though, you have accepted the analysis of others. The popular analysis has become questioned more in the last few years and questioned by by scientists involved in climate research. The irrefutable evidence is no longer irrefutable. Science, especially inexact science, is that way.
Not really. There, as there have always been, are a few doubters in the scientific community, but as a whole, there's significant consensus on the truth of global warming. Where there is less consensus is what exactly we can expect that to cause in the short term. In the longer term, there is significant consensus that it will cause sea level rises at the very least.
Now, among the public at large, there is little consensus because they don't like the politicization of the issue.
Moreover, it's hard for the public at large to see at this point without looking at temperature records directly because the effect is masked by yearly changes in weather caused by El Nino and the various oscillations that control our weather on a short term basis.
Quote from: jamesrage on February 11, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
Self parody alert? How does making that statement prove that religious nuts in the man made global warming fairy religion are right?
You're a self-parody because you're ranting against so-called "nuts" when you've proven yourself on this forum to be one.
Look at yourself ... you've chosen the pen name "jamesrage," and many of your posts are so steeped in anger, silly stereotypes and fact-free assumptions that it's easy to imagine foam dripping from your mouth as you type. "Nuts," indeed.
Besides, the allegation of scientists mixing religion is a misnomer. It's sort of like a vegetarian attending a meat-packers convention. The two things really don't mix.
Quote from: nathanm on February 11, 2010, 03:04:36 PM
Not really. There, as there have always been, are a few doubters in the scientific community, but as a whole, there's significant consensus on the truth of global warming. Where there is less consensus is what exactly we can expect that to cause in the short term. In the longer term, there is significant consensus that it will cause sea level rises at the very least.
Now, among the public at large, there is little consensus because they don't like the politicization of the issue.
Moreover, it's hard for the public at large to see at this point without looking at temperature records directly because the effect is masked by yearly changes in weather caused by El Nino and the various oscillations that control our weather on a short term basis.
Spoken like a true believer. I hope I live long enough to find out which is correct.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 11, 2010, 06:07:46 PM
Spoken like a true believer.
If by true believer you mean that I've read a lot about the subject and have some understanding of it, then yes, I am a true believer, as you put it.
I completely understand the confusion about what the effects of global warming will be. What I don't understand is how someone can look at the temperature records and not see the warming trend. Combine that with the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, I don't see where there's room to deny that our activities are causing global warming.
Quote from: nathanm on February 11, 2010, 06:30:37 PM
If by true believer you mean that I've read a lot about the subject and have some understanding of it, then yes, I am a true believer, as you put it.
I completely understand the confusion about what the effects of global warming will be. What I don't understand is how someone can look at the temperature records and not see the warming trend. Combine that with the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, I don't see where there's room to deny that our activities are causing global warming.
By true believer, I mean that you believe in this as one would be a religious devotee. You are unwilling to accept that any of the data or analysis could be in error.
Why are we even arguing over relatively small details like scientific consensus? What's in front of us is a major opportunity -- economically, politically and culturally. Globally, the idea that climate change is real and is man made is gaining acceptance, but there's no leadership and no consensus about how to address it. These ideas are out there but haven't coalesced around any forward motion.
We can be that forward motion. Seriously. If we threw our energy and our economy and our money behind it, literally the rest of the world would follow us. It would also conveniently marginalize some of our newest and biggest competitors (major pollutors China and India) until they toed the line that we defined. It's the easiest and most conflict-free way to ensure American dominance through the next century at least.
And it really has nothing to do with whether the science is 100% correct or not. It doesn't even matter whether any climate change is man-made. We're wasting time squabbling about root causes and whether science can be trusted or not, and all the while this opportunity to take the leadership reigns is passing us by. Whether it's real or not, other countries believe in it. Why wouldn't we take advantage of that?
It's easy to ridicule Al Gore, but he's almost single-handedly created the biggest market for new products and services globally we've seen since the internet boom.
I think what's getting lost in this debate are several things that are huge wild cards in the issue:
-- It's very uncertain whether carbon emissions can be lessened in the coming decades, simply because you have emerging Third World nations and natural population growth that will require more energy.
-- The trend of a warming planet is unmistakable, based on mountains of evidence. However, because carbon continues to be spewed into our thin atmosphere, will the effects of said carbon make an impact on our climate for decades? Centuries? Millennia? No one's really sure. The daunting thing is even if we drastically cut carbon emissions, it may not do a damned thing to the climate for generations.
But then you have ...
-- The fact the world's oil reserves are slowly but surely being depleted, and the depletion will accelerate because of the aforementioned emerging nations. Therefore, emissions from carbon sources may drop accordingly because the world will have no choice but to embrace alternative and renewable methods for energy.
Those are the big variables we're juggling with, and where these balls are going to fall is anyone's guess. Based on the available short-term evidence, the third scenario is the most likely, which may end up making an impact on the first and second variables. I'm pretty certain that folks who poke fun at alternative-fuel cars and solar panels and wind turbines are going to look pretty stupid a few decades from now.
Quote from: we vs us on February 12, 2010, 09:16:43 AM=
We can be that forward motion. Seriously. If we threw our energy and our economy and our money behind it, literally the rest of the world would follow us. It would also conveniently marginalize some of our newest and biggest competitors (major pollutors China and India) until they toed the line that we defined. It's the easiest and most conflict-free way to ensure American dominance through the next century at least.
Having studied the alt-energy issues in recent years, I think I have some perspective on the issue. So here goes ...
I think the reason there's hesitance by industry and government to embrace alt-energy is because there's so darned many methods and directions we could go. When it gets down to the brass tacks, there's going to have to be just one or two big, overarching energy sources to build infrastructure around and, thus, bring with it the efficiencies of scale to make it more affordable.
The big problem is no one knows what this energy source is going to be. Is it going to be electric? If so, from what? Wind? Solar? Nuclear? Hydroelectric? Is it going to be petroleum produced from algae? Is it going to be biodiesel? Is it going to be alcohol from switchgrass? Or corn? Is it going to be from natural gas? Or methane? Compressed air?
And the big question -- are any of these methods on the brink of a breakthrough in which energy can be produced cheaply and on a mass scale?
I was talking to this guy a few days ago out east who is going to be driving Route 66 this summer in a Pontiac GTO that's outfitted to burn compressed natural gas. He's all starry-eyed, and was convinced this is the wave of the future, and give the U.S. "energy independence." I think I took him aback when I replied we have no idea what alternative energy will be the wave of the future, and that energy independence is a fantasy because of the ubiquity of world trade.
I appreciate idealism as much as the next guy. But I think, after looking again at the sheer number of possibilities for alternative energy, that it may be wise for us to not get all gung-ho about certain "green" power sources that could be suddenly rendered as obsolete as a Betamax tape. Pragmatism has to co-exist with ambition.
Not really interested in talking about policies and such, but as for climate change science...
The average change in the amount of carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been 22 parts per million. We have run up CO2 levels by 100 ppm over the last two hundred years, and at an ever increasing rate. Currently we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate 14 THOUSAND times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years.
Yes the earth has "negative feedbacks" that can absorb even sudden, natural, large releases of carbon dioxide (volcanic eruptions for instance). But we are sending a LOT into the atmosphere (among other gasses as well, some more potent and longer lasting greenhouse gasses than even CO2), and are continuing to do so decade after decade, and have been increasing our rates to boot.
The earth is incredibly, amazingly, resilient, we likely wouldnt be here if it werent. And no we dont know everything and are still learning... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203161436.htm
But, over time, I have noticed that whenever we discover some piece of info about this or that which would counter, help keep in check, or something we werent right about with global warming and climate change,,, new info then adds onto the ever larger pile, the larger balance of info showing that the earth will still likely warm/change, and that WE are definitely a player in that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205130226.htm
Now, sure, the earths climate, has changed in the past, and will change no matter what. But there are 3 possibilities here that look increasingly likely.
1. The earth will "gradually" warm over one or two centuries (that may be gradual to us, not gradual in the usual scheme of things).
2. And this is the one scientists are having a worrying time trying to figure out if or when it could possibly happen. The earth hits a TIPPING POINT. Greenhouse gasses are rising (we know that) the climate is changing (whether you believe that specifically is us or not) and changing parts of the earth (less ice in the arctic) which also feeds back into changing the earths climate and weather, then add onto that the usual fluctuations, El-nino, Sun cycles, etc. Sometimes they warm, sometimes cool, sometimes they counter each other, sometimes,,,, they reinforce each other... Tipping points have happened in the past, when in just a few years the entire earths weather and climate systems have suddenly shifted into very new and different patterns. Patterns where weather in an area (Europe for example) will switch from the "usual" into something very different (an ice age for instance) and will stay in this new pattern for a long time. Now yes, this is the scary hype version of things, and also the one where we are most uncertain as to whether, when and if it could happen. But IF it happens, we wont be able to do much about it, and its that scenario which could really hurt us if we arent prepared. Man made global warming and climate change may not lead to such a scenario at all, BUT it could. Thats worth being very cautious about imo.
Big Freeze Plunged Europe Into Ice Age in Months
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130112421.htm
3. This scenario could be various combinations of the above two. Things could happen quicker than in the first, but not as quickly and dramatically as the second, etc.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420121335.htm
Just one little tidbit to leave you all with... The sun has been in an unusually extreme "cool and quiet" mode over the last decade. She is starting to wake up again...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8494225.stm
Its going to be interesting to see how things go over the next 30, 40 years of natural, cooling, warming earth (el nino etc.) and sun (solar minimums and maximums) warming cycles,,, and see how the man-made effects (and gradual changes like in the arctic "less ice-more warming") influence and push at the weather and climate. Sometimes working at odds and cancelling each other out,,,, sometimes all combined in the same direction.
Rwarn, I think you're right about the amount of different paths to take and how ultimately complex that would be. IMO, until something obvious comes long, we're going to be stuck relying much more on diverse energy sources -- decentralizing the mix, really -- rather than focusing solely on the next best singular thing.
However, we're bogged down still arguing the whethers, not the hows. The believers and the deniers are at loggerheads over a relatively small patch of ground while the bigger picture -- this major opportunity -- is just hanging out there.
On a personal level, obviously I think think that we're staring down some catastrophic stuff, but I'm hoping to point out that that doesn't have to be a point of agreement to move forward.
Quote from: we vs us on February 12, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
Rwarn, I think you're right about the amount of different paths to take and how ultimately complex that would be. IMO, until something obvious comes long, we're going to be stuck relying much more on diverse energy sources -- decentralizing the mix, really -- rather than focusing solely on the next best singular thing.
However, we're bogged down still arguing the whethers, not the hows. The believers and the deniers are at loggerheads over a relatively small patch of ground while the bigger picture -- this major opportunity -- is just hanging out there.
On a personal level, obviously I think think that we're staring down some catastrophic stuff, but I'm hoping to point out that that doesn't have to be a point of agreement to move forward.
I think diversity in energy sources rather than dependence on one or two is very important.
Take a look at what our over-dependence on fossil fuels has led to: pollution, health problems, economic issues, wars, and according to a percentage of the scientific community, it contributes to this global warming phenomena. The more dependent we become on one or two sources, the easier it is for a smaller group to monopolize, control, and collude on pricing. There are more than enough different ways to go about generating and distribute energy. Some will make more sense by region than others, like wind or solar.
Diversity creates a broader range of economic opportunities.
You mentioned in an earlier post about this being an opportunity economically,
politically and culturally. Personally, I don't want to see politics anywhere near determining what the best technology(ies) is/are. Political ideas like cap and trade do nothing but make US companies that much less competitive with China and India, and does nothing to force them to observe the same sort of emissions rules. Those are sovereign nations, we cannot force their hand on what they will or won't do regarding emissions. Treaties are only as strong as the earnestness in the leaders who sign them. The only place I see for politics in the mix is helping to fund viable proven technologies and sponsoring relevant research.
Quote from: we vs us on February 12, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
Rwarn, I think you're right about the amount of different paths to take and how ultimately complex that would be. IMO, until something obvious comes long, we're going to be stuck relying much more on diverse energy sources -- decentralizing the mix, really -- rather than focusing solely on the next best singular thing.
However, we're bogged down still arguing the whethers, not the hows. The believers and the deniers are at loggerheads over a relatively small patch of ground while the bigger picture -- this major opportunity -- is just hanging out there.
On a personal level, obviously I think think that we're staring down some catastrophic stuff, but I'm hoping to point out that that doesn't have to be a point of agreement to move forward.
The question is.. Which way
is forward. I believe that jumping at a knee jerk solution could do more harm than carefully finding the solution to the correct problem.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 12, 2010, 07:56:12 AM
By true believer, I mean that you believe in this as one would be a religious devotee. You are unwilling to accept that any of the data or analysis could be in error.
No, I'm perfectly open to counterintuitive effects. I have yet to see any peer reviewed science that lays out how the prevailing ideas are wrong, however. If you have references other than bloviating by Republican Senators and right wing talk show hosts, I'd love to see them.
Based on the evidence, I am indeed convinced that we are bucking up the planet, and that it likely won't be more than 20 years before the sea warms enough to evaporate the methane clathrates on the Arctic seabed. (It's already happening on a relatively small scale) Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, by the way.
We're playing russian roulette here, and the obfuscation from the right isn't helping matters.
Thankfully, it turned out that the clathrate formations under most of the world's oceans are stabilized mainly by pressure, not low temperature, so it's unlikely we will see the mass death of sea life from the changing ocean chemistry as has happened several times in the past. At least not from that particular mechanism. The increase in dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans is already having an effect on sea life.
So anyway, can you explain where your disagreement stems from? Do you believe that there is in fact warming and just disagree about the consequences of it, or are you saying that you don't believe that there is in fact a warming trend going on? I'm genuinely curious.
Quote from: nathanm on February 12, 2010, 04:38:29 PM
No, I'm perfectly open to counterintuitive effects. I have yet to see any peer reviewed science that lays out how the prevailing ideas are wrong, however. If you have references other than bloviating by Republican Senators and right wing talk show hosts, I'd love to see them.
Based on the evidence, I am indeed convinced that we are frakking up the planet, and that it likely won't be more than 20 years before the sea warms enough to evaporate the methane clathrates on the Arctic seabed. (It's already happening on a relatively small scale) Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, by the way.
We're playing russian roulette here, and the obfuscation from the right isn't helping matters.
Thankfully, it turned out that the clathrate formations under most of the world's oceans are stabilized mainly by pressure, not low temperature, so it's unlikely we will see the mass death of sea life from the changing ocean chemistry as has happened several times in the past. At least not from that particular mechanism. The increase in dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans is already having an effect on sea life.
So anyway, can you explain where your disagreement stems from? Do you believe that there is in fact warming and just disagree about the consequences of it, or are you saying that you don't believe that there is in fact a warming trend going on? I'm genuinely curious.
I'll start off by saying that I don't trust the Global Warming voices. (I will identify Global Warming / Global Climate Change as GW to save space.) I pick on Al Gore because he is the high profile voice for the movement. Most of us depend on others to take the raw data and do the analysis so at some level we all depend on someone else. I believe Al Gore can also be categorized as a bloviator. Obfuscation is not a characteristic solely of the right. Voices of GW have said that gross exaggeration is a legitimate tool to send the message of GW. (GW is not the only issue to use this method.) I am frequently at a disadvantage on this forum since I don't have a photographic memory. I see, hear or read something and evaluate the credibility then promptly forget the exact source. Much of my opinion on GW is based on the information gathering of my father (deceased in 2001) and my uncle (deceased in Nov 2008). They were both retired engineers and had the time to look at both sides of the issue and determine if the presentation had a scientific legitimacy. I still have to earn a living and already spend too much time on this forum. Another friend, a retired geologist, also has the time and inclination to look for both sides of the issue. I expect you have the same respect for anything from Fox that I have for data from the mainstream media. I am not prepared to call the mainstream media intentional liars, just that they pick and present information favorable to their (often left leaning/ liberal) views.
The hockey stick. It is reasonable to extrapolate from a data set that has followed a pattern. To extrapolate from a relatively sudden change in a pattern and predict disaster is not reasonable. I won't say the extrapolation
cannot be accurate, just unlikely. The industrial revolution is an obvious correlation if you include a lag time of 50 or so years. It may or may not be a cause. The analysis of the data leading to the hockey stick has been questioned. One predominate response has been that the data as analyzed by the model used, consistently predicts the hockey stick. No surprise that the same analysis of the same data leads to the same results. Peer review using the same model would lead to the same conclusion. The model is what is actually in question. As I have posted earlier, (my uncle found that) the model used cannot accurately "predict" events that have already happened with the data that preceded it. The hockey stick impresses me as "publish or perish".
Both sides have cherry picked data. One side of the antarctic is melting. The other side is building ice. Each side picks the data advantageous to their case. I don't have info on the mass balance. You seem to be educated enough that I assume that you know the difference between heat and temperature. The earth is a really large area/mass to integrate a relatively small sample of data over. Melting sea ice or ice not supported by a land mass will not raise sea level. Melting ice supported by land will raise sea level. All we hear in the media is
the sky is falling the ice is melting. The sea level will rise significantly.
At one time, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to establish settlements there. How warm was the earth then? What was sea level? Were they emitting huge quantities of CO2 or methane? While I sympathize with island and low lying areas around the world, were they populated before the little ice age like they are now? Have we taken advantage of a relatively cool period and are we now unprepared to live in a warmer period. I have seen on Discovery or History Channel (certainly not right wing bloviators) that during the little ice age that priests would climb mountains to the edge of a glacier to pray to try to stop the advance of glaciers in Europe. It didn't work. The ice advanced. If they had only known that if they had burned huge quantities of hydrocarbons instead, they could have stopped the advance of the ice. :) The famous picture of the polar bears on the ice floe has been debunked by the original photographer, at least from what I have found on several sources on the internet. The photo was taken by an Australian in Canada in the summer, August I believe. The bears were not in the middle of the ocean with no other ice around. There were about 5000 polar bears in 1960, about 25000 recently. The GW crowd glommed onto the picture (about 2 years after it was taken) as proof that we are sending polar bears to their extinction.
I have seen pictures of arctic ice that indicate the lowest ice level was not last year. One year does not a trend make but it doesn't support runaway positive feedback either. We'll have to see what the next few years bring. Note that I don't claim that the local snow situation proves or disproves GW. We are cold here but they had to truck in snow to the winter olympics. Again, the earth is a huge place to integrate temperature/heat data over.
Scare tactics... Oh my (deity of your choice), a little more warming and the clathrate formations will release untold amounts of methane and the world will end in our lifetime. Oops, the formations under most of the world's oceans are mostly stabilized by pressure, not temperature.... never mind. (With apologies to Gilda Radner, who I expect would have supported the GW movement.) What else has been insufficiently researched before releasing conclusions to the public?
It's OK to burn ethanol as fuel. The products of combustion of ethanol are water and CO2. It's acceptable though since the ethanol came from carbon on the surface of the earth. Never mind that it is in the atmosphere once it is burned until plants can re-absorb the CO2 product. What if we ate that carbon (corn, sugar cane, beets) instead and allowed the same plants to absorb the CO2 from burning dinosaurs and plants from eons ago? Is the answer to tell Brazil to stop cutting down the rain forest or does the CO2 only apply to the northern hemisphere that was used for the hockey stick? (I know that most of the world's land mass is north of the equator.)
I cannot deny that some areas have melted a lot of ice. Is the heat content of the earth increasing? Picking some areas where there has been a lot of ice melting does not prove that the overall heat of the earth is increasing. Are we selectively ignoring some areas that are difficult to get to that may be cooling. My uncle (yes, the deceased one) claimed that NASA's satellites have not proven that the overall heat content of the earth has increased. Twenty or so years of temperature change as related to geologic time does not prove an ever increasing trend. Some claim the earth is not as warm now as a few years ago. Again, hard to prove one way or the other.
Regardless of whether GW exists or is or is not human induced, we should pursue alternate sources of energy. Dumping stuff (CO2, water vapor, methane...) into the atmosphere can't be good. (Unless maybe we have stopped a massive global cooling, which is unlikely.) Everything humans do has some effect on the earth. We need to evaluate the cost and benefit.
The GW community has made a presentation but I don't believe they have proven anything. The GW community has achieved a near religious intensity. To doubt GW is heresy. I am not prepared to turn my thermostat down to 33 (to keep the water pipes from freezing) in the winter or give up my air conditioning in the house in the summer.
So anyway, my disagreement stems from my perception of a lack of credibility of the GW movement.
Edit: corrected date of uncle's death
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2010, 12:46:30 AM
The GW community has made a presentation but I don't believe they have proven anything. The GW community has achieved a near religious intensity. To doubt GW is heresy. I am not prepared to turn my thermostat down to 33 (to keep the water pipes from freezing) in the winter or give up my air conditioning in the house in the summer.
So anyway, my disagreement stems from my perception of a lack of credibility of the GW movement.
Edit: corrected date of uncle's death
First off, I appreciate you taking the time to write such a long post. I know these things take time. (you can only imagine how much of my life I waste writing posts on various Internet fora)
On to the meat, I think you're confusing the
science of Global Warming with the
politics of Global Warming.
Take, for example the clathrates I was talking about. You are correct that most are stabilized by pressure. Research has shown, however, that the clathrates in the Arctic are not, because the Arctic Ocean is much shallower than the world's other oceans. There, it's temperature-based, which is why they are already dissolving, leading to significant methane releases.
For political reasons, this science got trotted out by bloviators (to borrow your term) before it had finished baking. Continued research found that clathrate formations in most of the world's oceans are indeed pressure-stabilized.
You are completely correct that there have been some instances of exaggeration on the part of Global Warming proponents, and even a few (relatively minor, all things considered) errors in the science that we've discovered over the years. That's true in any field. No science is perfect, not even General Relativity. That said, I'm sure you can understand how this happens. It's similar to Bush's scare tactics about Iraq, except with more factual basis and less continuing to push false data after it is known to be false.
The Medieval Warm Period was primarily concentrated in Northern latitudes for some reason, so doesn't have a large bearing on the idea of
global climate change. Further research will prove instructive as to what we can expect, given that the temperature average across the North Atlantic was about 1C higher than it is today. (yet cooler globally) The Antarctic, for example, was abnormally cold during that timeframe.
There is still a lot we don't know (and a lot more that I, personally, don't know), but it's short sighted to expect that dumping millions of tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will have no effect whatsoever.
Examples of how these things are being refined, just in the Antarctic:
Quote
"Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates," said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN. "So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear."
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/19/west_antarctic_ice_sheet/
Quote
Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110662
The rate of sea level rise is at least 2.4mm a year (the average over the last century is about 1.8mm/yr), so the increased precipitation in the East Antarctic has very little effect on the overall trend. It's a good example, however, of how changing weather patterns can have unintuitive effects as warming increases the amount of moisture air can hold, leading to increased snowfall. (since the warming isn't enough to raise the temperature above freezing)
Also, while it is true that melting sea ice does not, in and of itself, lead to increased sea levels (we're all familiar with ice cubes in our water), the ice shelves in Antarctica and elsewhere slow the advance of glaciers into the sea. In cases where ice shelves have collapsed, we have seen this effect first hand. Moreover, many of these ice shelves are not fully submerged, as much of the Antarctic landmass is below sea level due to the weight of the ice. This means that they are resting on the bottom, and not fully floating, so a collapse would lead to some rise in sea level, albeit less than if the ice shelves were fully land-based.
Quote
The possibility that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will collapse as a consequence of ice shelf disintegration has been debated for many years. This matter is of concern because such an event would imply a sudden increase in sea level. Evidence is presented here showing drastic dynamic perturbations on former tributary glaciers that fed sections of the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula before its collapse in 1995. Satellite images and airborne surveys allowed unambiguous identification of active surging phases of Boydell, Sjögren, Edgeworth, Bombardier, and Drygalski glaciers. This discovery calls for a reconsideration of former hypotheses about the stabilizing role of ice shelves.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5612/1560
Quote
The concept that the Antarctic ice sheet changes with eternal slowness has been challenged by recent observations from satellites. Pronounced regional warming in the Antarctic Peninsula triggered ice shelf collapse, which led to a 10-fold increase in glacier flow and rapid ice sheet retreat. This chain of events illustrated the vulnerability of ice shelves to climate warming and their buffering role on the mass balance of Antarctica. In West Antarctica, the Pine Island Bay sector is draining far more ice into the ocean than is stored upstream from snow accumulation. This sector could raise sea level by 1 m and trigger widespread retreat of ice in West Antarctica. Pine Island Glacier accelerated 38% since 1975, and most of the speed up took place over the last decade. Its neighbour Thwaites Glacier is widening up and may double its width when its weakened eastern ice shelf breaks up. Widespread acceleration in this sector may be caused by glacier ungrounding from ice shelf melting by an ocean that has recently warmed by 0.3 °C. In contrast, glaciers buffered from oceanic change by large ice shelves have only small contributions to sea level. In East Antarctica, many glaciers are close to a state of mass balance, but sectors grounded well below sea level, such as Cook Ice Shelf, Ninnis/Mertz, Frost and Totten glaciers, are thinning and losing mass. Hence, East Antarctica is not immune to changes.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1637.abstract
It is true that global warming proponents often trumpet the maximum effects predicted by scientific research, rather than quoting the likely range. I agree that for us thinking people, that is an issue. It turns people off because it seems dishonest. (although if clearly stated, it's not dishonest, but not particularly instructive, either) It's easy to confuse the liberal (as in loose, not "left wing") interpretations of these studies by the media with the relatively conservative estimates given by scientists.
Oh, and I also agree that Al Gore is a bloviator, but he did quite a lot to raise awareness of the issue and get people talking about it in a big way, even if some of the science he was quoting turned out to be wrong. (and the stupid polar bear, which does nothing but distract us from the real science)
Ten years ago, there was a lot less hard research on this subject than there is today. Sadly, very little of it has resulted in good news.
I'm not so sure the politics and science can be separated anymore. It would help to get the straight story.
Quote
Take, for example the clathrates I was talking about. You are correct that most are stabilized by pressure. Research has shown, however, that the clathrates in the Arctic are not, because the Arctic Ocean is much shallower than the world's other oceans. There, it's temperature-based, which is why they are already dissolving, leading to significant methane releases.
I would hope you agree since I took it directly from your post.
Quote
Thankfully, it turned out that the clathrate formations under most of the world's oceans are stabilized mainly by pressure, not low temperature, so it's unlikely we will see the mass death of sea life from the changing ocean chemistry as has happened several times in the past. At least not from that particular mechanism.
Quote
For political reasons, this science got trotted out by bloviators (to borrow your term)
Actually, I borrowed the term from you. I changed the form to fit my sentence.
Quote
If you have references other than bloviating by Republican Senators and right wing talk show hosts, I'd love to see them.
Since even the IPCC is suspect anymore, who do we trust? In my usual fashion, I cannot name names, but scientists have defected from the science organizations of GW/GCC. To say they gave up their positions just to spew lies is a bit of a stretch.
Quote
and even a few (relatively minor, all things considered) errors in the science that we've discovered over the years.
I cannot agree that a model that cannot be proven correct by existing data is a
minor error when that model is being used to predict extrapolated changes of the dire consequences stated by the GW/GCC proponents. I'm also not convinced that at least some of the GW/GCC community is not trying to push false data per your comparison to Bush/Iraq. ( I would have rather left GWB/Iraq out of the discussion we are having but you opened the bag.) The data pushing is part of my statement of not being able to separate the politics and science anymore, if indeed it ever was separable at the public level. Promoting things like wild schemes to control cow flatulence doesn't do anything to increase the credibility of the GW/GCC community.
I didn't say that dumping tons of pollutants into the air had
no effect. I am not convinced the level we are dumping is controlling the climate and global warming.
Quote
It's a good example, however, of how changing weather patterns can have unintuitive effects as warming increases the amount of moisture air can hold, leading to increased snowfall. (since the warming isn't enough to raise the temperature above freezing)
And, as a counterpoint, maybe the increased snow on 49 of 50 states is part of the relatively insignificant negative feedback that is ignored as a higher order term (insignificant part) in "the model" which makes it require correction factors. I don't know how long the snow reflecting energy and keeping the air a few thousand feet thick colder than normal and the ground under it cooler has to stay to become significant. To say it has no effect would, in my opinion, be short sighted. You mentioned that during the medieval warm period that the antarctic was cooler than normal. Temperature vs. heat. Do you have an energy balance for the period? BTUs or Calories of the world. You can make a better case if you do. I don't have the numbers so I'm leaving myself open here. (For anyone reading that may not know what I am talking about with BTUs, you can melt a couple of ice cubes with a few ounces of boiling water. You can melt a lot more with a sink full of 100 degree F water in the same time.)
Al Gore did a lot to raise the awareness of the GW/GCC issue. I believe he has also done a lot to discredit it. Right now, credibility is as much an issue as the supposed science. Since you brought up GWB/Iraq, I'll be forced to comment that for someone telling the world it needs to lower its carbon footprint, Big Al needs to lower his personal carbon footprint. I normally wouldn't consider his personal carbon footprint as significant on a world scale. As a spokesman, he should set a better personal example.
As you said, the science is inexact. The cause of most stomach ulcers was known by all the medical community, until one doctor (and probably a support staff) determined it to be related to bacteria. Keep the research going but don't insist on the present cause/effect to the exclusion of other possibilities. I don't see the present GW/GCC community being open to possibilities other than the current course.
I don't have time to reply in full at the moment, but I'd like you to chew on this for a minute: Regardless of the models, there has been significant warming and significant ice melting in recent years. It has continued, although slowed somewhat, as solar output has decreased during the low part of the solar cycle. Controlled for the solar cycle, the trend shows strong correlation with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We don't need models to show that we've been having some effect.
Also, just so I don't forget to mention it later, fudge factors are everywhere, in every model, even ones we consider to be pretty darn good. In physics, there are several constants whose value has no rational basis other than "what fits the best," yet somehow physics manages to predict all sorts of physical phenomena. The inclusion of such factors does not per se indicate the incorrectness of a particular model.
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2010, 11:58:03 PM
I don't have time to reply in full at the moment, but I'd like you to chew on this for a minute: Regardless of the models, there has been significant warming and significant ice melting in recent years. It has continued, although slowed somewhat, as solar output has decreased during the low part of the solar cycle. Controlled for the solar cycle, the trend shows strong correlation with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We don't need models to show that we've been having some effect.
Also, just so I don't forget to mention it later, fudge factors are everywhere, in every model, even ones we consider to be pretty darn good. In physics, there are several constants whose value has no rational basis other than "what fits the best," yet somehow physics manages to predict all sorts of physical phenomena. The inclusion of such factors does not per se indicate the incorrectness of a particular model.
My complaint is actually the models being used to predict the future.
The best models are the ones where the "constant" doesn't need to be adjusted once its found or at least the adjustments to the constant can be predicted.