Global Cooling - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 05-05-2008, 12:02 PM

So are we cooling or are we warming?

A while ago I read about a German study which did the 'well we are cooling but its really warming, its just cooling now, and thats natural but really we are warming'.

The data I've seen from the last few years do confirm we are in fact cooling.

But really how long can we pretend that CO2 is the evil pollutant against common (and scientific) sense?

Quote:

Watch the web for climate change truths

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 04/05/2008

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 "while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".

A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired reports citing this as evidence of global warming.

In 2004 scientists from the University of Bangor made headlines with the prediction that Snowdon might lose its snowcap altogether by 2020. In 2007 a Welsh MP, Lembit Opik, was saying "it is shocking to think that in just 14 years snow on this mountain could be nothing but a distant memory".

Last November, viewing photographs of a snowless Snowdon at an exhibition in Cardiff, the Welsh environment minister, Jane Davidson, said "we must act now to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change".

Yet virtually no coverage has been given to the abnormally deep spring snow which prevented the completion of a new building on Snowdon's summit for more than a month, and nearly made it miss the deadline for £4.2 million of EU funding. (Brussels eventually extended the deadline to next autumn.)

Two weeks ago, as North America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades, the US National Climate Data Center, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a statement that snow cover in January on the Eurasian land mass had been the most extensive ever recorded, and that in the US March had been only the 63rd warmest since records began in 1895.

While global warming enthusiasts might take cheer from the NOAA's claim that "average global land temperature" in March was "the warmest on record", this was in striking contrast to a graph published last week on the Climate Audit website by Steve McIntyre.

Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

Mr McIntyre is the computer expert who exposed the infamous "hockey stick" graph - that icon of warmist orthodoxy which showed global temperatures soaring recently to their highest level for 1,000 years. He showed that the computer model that produced this graph had been so designed that it would have conjured even random numbers from a telephone directory into the shape of a hockey stick).

On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.

Discussion of this on the invaluable Watts Up With That website, run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows how the alternations of the PDO between warm and cool coincided with each of the major temperature shifts of the 20th century - warming after 1905, cooling after 1946, warming again after 1977 - and how the new shift to a cool phase could have repercussions for decades to come.

It is notable that the German computer predictions published last week by Nature forecast a decade of cooling due to deep-ocean movements in the Atlantic, without taking account of how this may now be reinforced by a similar, even greater movement in the Pacific.

Mr Watts points out that the West coast of the USA might already be experiencing these effects in the recent freezing temperatures that have devastated orchards and vineyards in California, prompting an appeal for disaster relief for growers who fear they may have lost this year's crops.

Mr Watts's readers are amused by the explanation from one warmist apologist that "these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities - or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it".

It is striking, in view of the colossal implications of the current response to "the greatest challenge confronting mankind" - as our politicians love to call it - how this hugely important debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through expert websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts.

On one hand our politicians are committing us to spending unimaginable sums on wind farms, emissions trading schemes, absurdly ambitious biofuel targets, and every kind of tax and regulation designed to reduce our "carbon footprint" - all based on blindly accepting the predictions of computer models that the planet is overheating due to our output of greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).

The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998, was not predicted by any of those officially-sponsored models. The discrepancy between their predictions and observable data becomes more glaring with every month that passes.

It won't do for believers in warmist orthodoxy to claim that, although temperatures may be falling, this is only because they are "masking an underlying warming trend that is still continuing" - nor to fob us off with assurances that the "German model shows that higher temperatures than 1998, the warmest year on record, are likely to return after 2015".

In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../04/do0405.xml

Now I realize this is the daily telegraph, perhaps the only conservative bent major publication in the UK, but commentary aside, the data is in fact correct.

Regardless of your politics, the SCIENCE of global warming is obviously flawed and untested. The models do not add up with the reality out there, but we are still inundated with anecdotal global warming factoids constantly ala the shark attacks of 2001.

My fear as always is the backlash this will cause. The population is not truly stupid but uneducated. By tricking them to believing something, they will resent it when it turns out to be false. Much of our environmental progress in terms of how people view the environment has become tied to global warming. I worry about the reaction of people and therefore the people they elect after this fraud has come to light.

Its difficult enough to explain the use of biodiversity to people, its going to be even harder to get their trust after so many 'leaders' have been found out to be at best mistaken and in many cases lying.

Willravel · 05-05-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So are we cooling or are we warming?

Both. What was once colloquially called "global warming" is actually "global climate change". That stuff Al Gore is talking about? Yeah, that's global climate change. The warming is only one of many trends possibly resulting from a combination of things, including pollution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

But really how long can we pretend that CO2 is the evil pollutant against common (and scientific) sense?

It's not pretending, it's experts drawing conclusions from data. If data comes forward that contradicts CO2 being linked to global climate change, then the conclusions might shift.

Leto · 05-05-2008, 12:13 PM

Most likely methane will be the more severe culprit. But there are stores of CO2 in the permafrost that can outgass fairly soon. IS this material? who knows.

djtestudo · 05-05-2008, 12:13 PM

The one thing I'll say (as someone who wouldn't dare consider himself anything more then casually knowledgeable on the subject and who also tends to believe that humanity's effect on global climate is minimal), is that part of my understanding on the subject is that climate change could cause more extreme weather, not necessarily simply warmer or cooler climates. So even if there was a colder and wetter winter, it wouldn't matter if the summer was hotter and drier then in the past.

Ustwo · 05-05-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

The one thing I'll say (as someone who wouldn't dare consider himself anything more then casually knowledgeable on the subject and who also tends to believe that humanity's effect on global climate is minimal), is that part of my understanding on the subject is that climate change could cause more extreme weather, not necessarily simply warmer or cooler climates. So even if there was a colder and wetter winter, it wouldn't matter if the summer was hotter and drier then in the past.

The problem with this, is its a cop out.

All their models showed an increase in temperature (which didn't happen). Many were predicting worse hurricane seasons (which didn't happen).

This is a cop out because its completely non-predictive. Its saying 'well we don't know if it will be warming or cooling but bad things will happen', and then every time we have a major snow storm or hurricane its 'see global warming did it!'.

robot_parade · 05-05-2008, 12:42 PM

Oh, come on. Aren't we done with the anti-global-warming thing? No? Ok, whatever.

Here's a link to a summary of what the Nature paper in question actually says:

[LINK=http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/05/decade_break_in_global_warming.html]Nature blog[/LINK]

Quote:

What this new paper by Noel Keenlyside, of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany, sets out to do is incorporate data on short term variations in climate into our models of climate change. By doing this they push us into the arena of creating shorter term predictions, in this case of the next decade.

So, actually some fascinating science going on, which doesn't really have much bearing on the longer term global warming/climate change issues. We've known all along that global warming doesn't mean a constantly warming planet, with no 'cold snaps' or other variations. It means that, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we're putting into the atmosphere are going to cause climate change on a global scale, causing significant warming in a relatively short time.

Personally, I don't think it's the most critical environmental problem we have right now, but climate change like what is predicted will almost certainly cause a lot of disruption and suffering - places that are habitable (and inhabited) by people are going to become a lot less friendly very quickly. People will starve to death.

Obviously I'm not going to convince you, Ustwo, and I don't really have time to counter every single right-winger anti-global warming talking point you can come up with, so maybe I shouldn't have responded at all.

However, I have to say, I find the right-wing's anti-science bias truly shocking. On environmental issues (anti-global-warming, anti-acid-rain), economics (worship of free markets and unregulated capitalism), even basic cosmology, physics, and biology (creationism, anti-evolutionism, anti-vaccination), it's a truly sick culture of denial, evasion, and obfuscation. Any good ideas on the right (smaller government, eschewing onerous regulation, balanced budget...) are drowned out by the crazies.

End rant.

Ustwo · 05-05-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

Oh, come on. Aren't we done with the anti-global-warming thing? No? Ok, whatever.

Here's a link to a summary of what the Nature paper in question actually says:

[LINK=http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/05/decade_break_in_global_warming.html]Nature blog[/LINK]

So, actually some fascinating science going on, which doesn't really have much bearing on the longer term global warming/climate change issues. We've known all along that global warming doesn't mean a constantly warming planet, with no 'cold snaps' or other variations. It means that, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we're putting into the atmosphere are going to cause climate change on a global scale, causing significant warming in a relatively short time.

Only it DOESN'T the models don't work PERIOD. Its garbage in garbage out, its not science, its a videogame.

Quote:

Personally, I don't think it's the most critical environmental problem we have right now, but climate change like what is predicted will almost certainly cause a lot of disruption and suffering - places that are habitable (and inhabited) by people are going to become a lot less friendly very quickly. People will starve to death.

Calling it climate change is a way to de-politicize the issue, but its a meaningless statement. The climate will change, and when it changes some places will be better off and some places worse off, perhaps they will grow fine wine in England again like the good old days. Its GOING to change, hell climate change is in part blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire, but the question is if WE are causing it.

Quote:

Obviously I'm not going to convince you, Ustwo, and I don't really have time to counter every single right-winger anti-global warming talking point you can come up with, so maybe I shouldn't have responded at all.

However, I have to say, I find the right-wing's anti-science bias truly shocking. On environmental issues (anti-global-warming, anti-acid-rain), economics (worship of free markets and unregulated capitalism), even basic cosmology, physics, and biology (creationism, anti-evolutionism, anti-vaccination), it's a truly sick culture of denial, evasion, and obfuscation. Any good ideas on the right (smaller government, eschewing onerous regulation, balanced budget...) are drowned out by the crazies.

End rant.

Angry man is angry, angry man went off on tangents which have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I'm an atheist with 2 biology degrees on top of my professional ones, if you want to rant about the Church Lady, do it elsewhere.

Lots of idiots are on the right, well lets get into powercrystals, 9/11 was done by GWB, PeTA, people talking about the spirit of the earth, and the like on the left.

They are unimportant in this thread, as is your rant.

Seaver · 05-05-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Both. What was once colloquially called "global warming" is actually "global climate change". That stuff Al Gore is talking about? Yeah, that's global climate change. The warming is only one of many trends possibly resulting from a combination of things, including pollution.

As Ustwo stated, it's BS. Changes in weather is caused by pollution does not work. You can't be right on both sides of the isle and claim no one can doubt you.

Quote:

However, I have to say, I find the right-wing's anti-science bias truly shocking. On environmental issues (anti-global-warming, anti-acid-rain), economics (worship of free markets and unregulated capitalism), even basic cosmology, physics, and biology (creationism, anti-evolutionism, anti-vaccination), it's a truly sick culture of denial, evasion, and obfuscation. Any good ideas on the right (smaller government, eschewing onerous regulation, balanced budget...) are drowned out by the crazies.

End rant.

Show some sort of evidence of a stance. You take a stance based on temerature increasing, it decreases... you can't still be right. If we are to completely change an economy we need evidence. It was supposed to increase, it didn't. The hockeystick model is proven BS. It was supposed to have more hurricanes when we had not 1 in 2006. Ocean temperatures were supposed to go up, they didn't.

Mountains which were having decreasing glaciers were touted as proof of global warming, now are having advancing glaciers and are ignored (Snowdonia).

Willravel · 05-05-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

As Ustwo stated, it's BS. Changes in weather is caused by pollution does not work. You can't be right on both sides of the isle and claim no one can doubt you.

As a vast majority of the foremost experts in the world on climate have said: it's not BS.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

As a vast majority of the foremost experts in the world on climate have said: it's not BS.

I hear that to determine truth in science, what you do is take all the papers that are of one opinion, take all the papers that are of another, weigh them, and then determine which theory is correct that way.

Scientists have resigned from the IPCC due to it being heavily biased and only interested in what they considered to be the proper, forgone conclusions.

Its political at this point, the science has been long left behind. I was going to highlight the important parts of the letter below, but there would still be a wall of text. If you want to understand why global warming is no longer about science, please read.

Quote:

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation - though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ea_leaves.html

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I hear that to determine truth in science, what you do is take all the papers that are of one opinion, take all the papers that are of another, weigh them, and then determine which theory is correct that way.

"Truth" in science is determined through the scientific method. Your research is clearly biased, therefore your use of the scientific method is corrupted. Or do you think you have access to data that none of the other scientists have access to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its political at this point, the science has been long left behind. I was going to highlight the important parts of the letter below, but there would still be a wall of text. If you want to understand why global warming is no longer about science, please read.

Your use of outdated terminology speaks in volumes of your understanding of current theories. It's not been called "global warming" in any meaningful way by experts for years. It's global climate change, just as several posters, myself included, mentioned above. The problem is, ironically, that this is an inconvenient truth. It's easier for you to still argue if you argue against "global warming" because global climate change isn't just warming trends, it's a multitude of ecological and climatological phenomena.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Your use of outdated terminology speaks in volumes of your understanding of current theories.

I'm sorry I didn't PC it away.

It speaks volumes of your understanding of what the issues are.

Calling it global climate change is a way to divert from the truth that global warming isn't going to kill us all after all.

I still call homeless people bums too, nothing changed about them to warrant a new term.

Its colder, ITS OUR FAULT, its warmer ITS OUT FAULT, its raining less, ITS OUR FAULT, its raining more ITS OUR FAULT.

Give me a fucking break.

Its bad fucking science trying to manipulate people for political agendas. Reread the letter.

Cynthetiq · 05-06-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm sorry I didn't PC it away.

It speaks volumes of your understanding of what the issues are.

Calling it global climate change is a way to divert from the truth that global warming isn't going to kill us all after all.

I still call homeless people bums too, nothing changed about them to warrant a new term.

Its colder, ITS OUR FAULT, its warmer ITS OUT FAULT, its raining less, ITS OUR FAULT, its raining more ITS OUR FAULT.

Give me a fucking break.

Its bad fucking science trying to manipulate people for political agendas. Reread the letter.

but if we call them homeless it won't hurt their fragile egos, you know bum is such a bad sounding word...

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Give me a fucking break.

Maybe you can give us a break. Maybe you can throw factual evidence at us instead of an outdated, if not questionable education. Your case isn't even bad science, it's just fallacies.

It's global climate change instead of global warming because it's not just warming.

Cynthetiq · 05-06-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe you can give us a break. Maybe you can throw factual evidence at us instead of an outdated, if not questionable education. Your case isn't even bad science, it's just fallacies.

It's global climate change instead of global warming because it's not just warming.

really? that's your position?

seems like the pot/kettle thing, you know black....

loquitur · 05-06-2008, 10:30 AM

Will, your position is sort of like phlogiston. It's not falsifiable, which means it isn't really scientific. If your theory is "confirmed" by whatever data show up no matter which way they go, then it's not much of a theory because it can't be falsified.

ratbastid · 05-06-2008, 10:35 AM

I think an even more interesting question is: why does the pro- and anti-global "warming" argument split precisely down the political right/left dividing line? Surely that's not a coincidence?

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

really? that's your position?

seems like the pot/kettle thing, you know black....

Santa Clara University, BA in psych.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Will, your position is sort of like phlogiston. It's not falsifiable, which means it isn't really scientific. If your theory is "confirmed" by whatever data show up no matter which way they go, then it's not much of a theory because it can't be falsified.

From above:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, the wise

It's not pretending, it's experts drawing conclusions from data. If data comes forward that contradicts CO2 being linked to global climate change, then the conclusions might shift.

Cynthetiq · 05-06-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I think an even more interesting question is: why does the pro- and anti-global "warming" argument split precisely down the political right/left dividing line? Surely that's not a coincidence?

that's a great question...

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's not pretending, it's experts drawing conclusions from data. If data comes forward that contradicts CO2 being linked to global climate change, then the conclusions might shift.

Sorry but the only link to global climate change they had was warming with the greenhouse effect. Oddly, that aint working out according to their plan.

You are asking me to prove CO2 isn't having an effect on 'global climate change', might as well ask me to prove god isn't a small fish in my anus (which he is).

We already know you are an expert engineer, so I can only assume you are an expert on global 'climate change' as well and my outdated education is trumped by your expert knowledge.

As an expert that you are, can you point me to studies that accurately predicted current climate as a direct result of CO2? Can you show me how they predicted the current cooling trend? Can you show me how, even though none of them work for past climates, or current ones, how they will somehow accurately predict the future?

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sorry but the only link to global climate change they had was warming with the greenhouse effect. Oddly, that aint working out according to their plan.

Why does a psych major understand this better than you? Pockets of cooling are normal in larger warming trends. Those fluctuations are a part of the larger and developing understanding of global climate change, which includes overall warming trends. Sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We already know you are an expert engineer, so I can only assume you are an expert on global 'climate change' as well and my outdated education is trumped by your expert knowledge.

As it just so happens, I'm just relaying information available from numerous scientific publications available online. In other words, the world's foremost minds on the subject do, in fact, trump evidence taken out of context in your Telegraph article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As an expert that you are, can you point me to studies that accurately predicted current climate as a direct result of CO2? Can you show me how they predicted the current cooling trend? Can you show me how, even though none of them work for past climates, or current ones, how they will somehow accurately predict the future?

Study proving that CO2 can drastically effect climate:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate...t_webpage.html
http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...ms/2904txt.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2719627.ece
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...17/2219659.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ng-395796.html

The evidence is all there.

As for the "cooling trend", what cooling trend? One cold winter among many increasingly hot summers?

Bill O'Rights · 05-06-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's not pretending, it's experts drawing conclusions from data. If data comes forward that contradicts CO2 being linked to global climate change, then the conclusions might shift.

Or...conclusions will shift based upon the sources of the largest grants and fellowships. If there's one thing that 45 years of cynicism has taught me, it's always always always follow the money.

Look, even though our spewing shit into the air ain't helpin' matters any, the climate has been changing on this rock for millions and billions of years before we puny humans ever stepped foot out of the primordial ooze. So...yeah, the climate's changing. You ain't gonna stop it, and neither am I. Sometimes shit just happens.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Look, even though our spewing shit into the air ain't helpin' matters any, the climate has been changing on this rock for millions and billions of years before we puny humans ever stepped foot out of the primordial ooze. So...yeah, the climate's changing. You ain't gonna stop it, and neither am I. Sometimes shit just happens.

Yes, it can just happen. The question: is it just happening or are we helping it along?

loquitur · 05-06-2008, 01:24 PM

that is indeed the question, Will. I don't even question that altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect the insulating effect of the atmosphere, in principle. My issue is the levels needed to do that, whether it's naturally occurring, how much the manmade effect is, whether there are other or counteracting causes, and on and on and on. For all I know the human-caused effect is dwarfed by variations in things like solar activity. I believe I read that there is a decrease in the polar ice cap of Mars - obviously not human caused.

So far as I can tell we just don't have a firm enough basis to say there is a crisis requiring drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies (while tolerating massive pollution from China and India). I'm totally with the concept that we should be responsible stewards of the earth, but we also need to be responsible stewards of our families and economies. So far as I'm able to tell this whole global warming thing is being used as a cudgel for political purposes rather than as a scientific question.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I think an even more interesting question is: why does the pro- and anti-global "warming" argument split precisely down the political right/left dividing line? Surely that's not a coincidence?

I've been thinking about this myself.

I'm not sure if I really qualify to be discussed in it, as originally I was in the global warming needs to be investigated camp and I have always been a 'acid rain is bad' type. I only started to wonder about the validity of global warming in college in the early 90's.

My guess is for many it would have been a more classic personality type reaction.

Conservative would be, its been fine forever, it was cold last winter, what are you talking about?

Liberal would be, tell me about it, we could all die! Well we need to do SOMETHING to fix it!

There is something in the liberal mind set which reacts to every sky is falling prediction, and something in the conservative mind set which won't admit the sky is falling even if they are getting hit by clouds.

Neither is necessarily good. One is gullible the other intractable. With global warming, since the evidence was not clear cut, this just let both sides dig in.

Currently though I think its gone beyond that. Since I can't say 'global warming' without showing my ignorance (heh) I'll say 'climate change' has become a vehicle for the politics of some agendas. Also while its been a good number of years since I was at the 'cutting edge' of environmental science as an active participant, there is an elitism there in the scientific community toward the public there where they assume the public is made up of idiots who would be better off dead (I heard more than once it would be good if a virus killed much of the population as casual conversation, people were the enemy). This elitism means they feel you, the public just need to know what they tell you as it will shape what they want to see happen, scientific reality doesn't matter, you are too stupid to grasp the issues. Speaking against it is heresy against the new orthodoxy, so when the founder of Greenpeace says things like we need new nuclear power plants and that the environmental movement is no longer about science but fear mongering he gets called a Judas.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

So far as I can tell we just don't have a firm enough basis to say there is a crisis requiring drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies (while tolerating massive pollution from China and India). I'm totally with the concept that we should be responsible stewards of the earth, but we also need to be responsible stewards of our families and economies. So far as I'm able to tell this whole global warming thing is being used as a cudgel for political purposes rather than as a scientific question.

I recall the same argument 35 years ago from car makers, oil companies, utilities, other heavy industries, etc about the need for a clean air act, clean water, safe drinking water act, solid waste disposal act, toxic waste disposal act....

The results were hardly an economic catastrophe and in fact, stimulated new industries to meet the new standards or develop alternatives.

I prefer to err on the side of "what if the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions and DOES have a serious environmental impact."

And I still tend to side with the IPCC and 11 national academies of science over the deniers, many of whom are funded by Exxon, Heartland Foundation and other industry interest groups.

Energy conservation/efficiency and airborne pollution mitigation is good policy policy from both an environmental and economic sustainability perspective.

If you were to read the IPCC mitigation strategy, you would find, for the most part, sensible recommendations that dont "require drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies."

But I raised this in another thread with Ustwo and he chose not to respond.

robot_parade · 05-06-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Only it DOESN'T the models don't work PERIOD. Its garbage in garbage out, its not science, its a videogame.

Except for the fact that 'it' (global warming/climate change) whathaveyou is accepted by most climatologists as the most likely description of what is and will happen over the next century or so. Right now, I'm aware of no reputable agencies or groups that are both knowledgeable on matters related to climatology *and* deny that man-made climate change is a reality.

They could be wrong. But we should base our policies on the best available scientific evidence we have now, not on hoping it's wrong, or believing it's wrong based upon ideology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Calling it climate change is a way to de-politicize the issue, but its a meaningless statement. The climate will change, and when it changes some places will be better off and some places worse off, perhaps they will grow fine wine in England again like the good old days. Its GOING to change, hell climate change is in part blamed for the fall of the Roman Empire, but the question is if WE are causing it.

"Human-influenced climate change" is probably the most accurate descriptive phrase. "Global warming" is also in a sense accurate, but gives laypeople the wrong impression, ie that "we're all going to burn up!" or that everywhere on earth is going to get hotter. The reality, as always, is much more nuanced.

Second, as you point out, climate has always changed, and, for as long as we've been around, we've been effected by it (usually in a negative way over the short term). For nearly as long, we've *affected* climate to one degree or another. Now, we're starting to be able to measure, study, and understand those changes. At the same time, the degree to which we're affecting our environment is increasing dramatically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Angry man is angry, angry man went off on tangents which have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Fair enough. Angry man is damned angry. And, while you may think it has nothing to do with what we're talking about, it's the same damn thing. People don't want to believe that we are causing climate change (or acid rain, or that they evolved from primates, or that the earth is round, etc), so they stick by their guns, no matter what evidence they're presented with. And I see it almost entirely associated with 'the right wing', whatever that is. It's unhealthy, and I'm tired of putting up with it politely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm an atheist with 2 biology degrees on top of my professional ones, if you want to rant about the Church Lady, do it elsewhere.

Fair enough. I don't particularly want to debate global warming (again), it's not going to go anywhere. But I see it as part and parcel of a much larger problem of denying science and evidence in favor of one's chosen ideology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lots of idiots are on the right, well lets get into powercrystals,
, 9/11 was done by GWB, PeTA, people talking about the spirit of the earth, and the like on the left.

Most of those bizarre beliefs aren't confined to 'the left', AFAIK - aside from perhaps the extreme behaviours of PeTA and 'GWB did it' as a branch of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They also don't have a dramatic effect on public policy like the anti-climate-change thing, various other anti-environmentalism things, or the anti-evolution thing. The truly harmful stuff seems (to me) to be mostly confined to the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

They are unimportant in this thread, as is your rant.

Another good point. I don't want to try to hijack your thread, but I did want to point out how I felt. Maybe sometime when I have more time and energy, I'll start a thread about which crazies are more widespread and harmful. For now, please accept my apologies if I've gone too far offtopic.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Study proving that CO2 can drastically effect climate:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate...t_webpage.html
http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...ms/2904txt.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2719627.ece
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...17/2219659.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ng-395796.html

Ok, let me pick one at random........

ennie, meenie, ok abc.net you win!

Ocean salinity evidence of climate change: researchers

Quote:

Posted Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:24pm AEST

An Australian research ship has docked in Hobart after a Southern Ocean voyage which has uncovered new evidence of climate change.

A team of scientists has spent the past four weeks on the Aurora Australis, measuring ocean currents between Australia and Antarctica.

Chief scientist, Steve Rintoul says the research shows there has been a drop in ocean salinity, suggesting ice around Antarctica is melting more rapidly.

"If it were to continue and so the waters around Antarctica continue to freshen and slow down the rate at which water sinks then that would have an impact on climate," he said.

"Because that pattern of ocean currents is what determines how much heat and carbon the ocean stores and that in turn determines how fast the climate warms."

Dr Rintoul says the data will be useful in assisting computer models make climate change predictions.

Ok water less salty, hypothesis is that ice melt is causing it......

will do you see where the disconnect is here between the effect and the cause?

Quote:

As for the "cooling trend", what cooling trend? One cold winter among many increasingly hot summers?

The controversy began "when Steve McIntyre of the blog Climateaudit.org e-mailed NASA scientists pointing out an unusual jump in temperature data from 1999 to 2000," reports The Los Angeles Times.

"When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.
------
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....87279412587175

loquitur · 05-06-2008, 02:39 PM

DC Dux, the problem with your position is that it is fundamentally Malthusian, once you strip away all the nice slogans. Again: I think responsibility is a good thing, but part of being responsible is not running off half-cocked until we have a good handle on what needs to be done if anything, and why.

The pollution issue is not analogous. Pollution is an externality. Living (which creates greenhouse gases - mere breathing does!) is not.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ok, let me pick one at random........

ennie, meenie, ok abc.net you win!

Ocean salinity evidence of climate change: researchers

Ok water less salty, hypothesis is that ice melt is causing it......

will do you see where the disconnect is here between the effect and the cause?

We have evidence of drastic ice melting and we have evidence that water is less salty. I can draw a picture if you'd like. What do you think happens to ice when it melts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The controversy began "when Steve McIntyre of the blog Climateaudit.org e-mailed NASA scientists pointing out an unusual jump in temperature data from 1999 to 2000," reports The Los Angeles Times.

"When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.
------
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....87279412587175

I just took a little tour of ibdeditorial.com. Here are some quotes from the front page:

Quote:

We are still Reagan's shining city on a hill.

And my favorite:

Quote:

Barack Obama wishes questions about his associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and other radicals would end. But maybe the reason they won't is that there's a pattern: Marxism.

As it turns out, IBD is a right wing rag!

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

The pollution issue is not analogous. Pollution is an externality. Living (which creates greenhouse gases - mere breathing does!) is not.

EPA estimates from 2004 - 40% of CO2 emissions result from power plants - burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation...and 33% of CO2 emissions come from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines/

Breath easy....its not from "living"...its from inefficient cars and power plants.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

Except for the fact that 'it' (global warming/climate change) whathaveyou is accepted by most climatologists as the most likely description of what is and will happen over the next century or so. Right now, I'm aware of no reputable agencies or groups that are both knowledgeable on matters related to climatology *and* deny that man-made climate change is a reality.

They could be wrong. But we should base our policies on the best available scientific evidence we have now, not on hoping it's wrong, or believing it's wrong based upon ideology.

I don't think I have been clear in what I'm talking about. The models can not predict PAST climates. As in you put in the numbers at some point in the past and it can't get us to the present. You can't work backwards to recreate the warm period in the 30's or the cooling in the 70's. The data just doesn't work, why should I trust it to tell me what it will be 100 years from now when it can't show what it was 100 years ago?

Quote:

"Human-influenced climate change" is probably the most accurate descriptive phrase. "Global warming" is also in a sense accurate, but gives laypeople the wrong impression, ie that "we're all going to burn up!" or that everywhere on earth is going to get hotter. The reality, as always, is much more nuanced.

The argument is still around CO2, a greenhouse gas, causing warming. If the argument was cutting down a forest causes a drought or the heat island affects of cities then I'd acquiesce there are arguments to be made there about local and perhaps global climate effects we are unaware of. The solutions presented are about reducing greenhouse emission, mainly CO2 (for some reason CH4 doesn't get much real press). The new concept may be climate change, but the real issue is still global warming.

Quote:

Second, as you point out, climate has always changed, and, for as long as we've been around, we've been effected by it (usually in a negative way over the short term). For nearly as long, we've *affected* climate to one degree or another. Now, we're starting to be able to measure, study, and understand those changes. At the same time, the degree to which we're affecting our environment is increasing dramatically.

While locally we can affect the climate and environment and have done so since the beginning of time, I think its a bit extreme to claim any climate changes in the past 10,000 years or so had anything to do with human activity. For instance I doubt the Roman warm period or dark ages cold period, which were global trends not just European ones, had anything to do with human activities.

Quote:

Fair enough. Angry man is damned angry. And, while you may think it has nothing to do with what we're talking about, it's the same damn thing. People don't want to believe that we are causing climate change (or acid rain, or that they evolved from primates, or that the earth is round, etc), so they stick by their guns, no matter what evidence they're presented with. And I see it almost entirely associated with 'the right wing', whatever that is. It's unhealthy, and I'm tired of putting up with it politely.

Well thats not me, I started my research career as a youngster working on acid rains effect on annelids. Its are a lot of people out there who are skeptics on global warming who do not fit your rant either. My skepticism is based purely on the science, or more importantly lack there of showing any definitive link. A best or worst, we have a correlation and an incomplete understanding.

Quote:

Fair enough. I don't particularly want to debate global warming (again), it's not going to go anywhere. But I see it as part and parcel of a much larger problem of denying science and evidence in favor of one's chosen ideology.

Are you a conservative? Yes I'm making a joke, I know your politics based on your stance

So my stance is based on ideology and yours on science? Do you think at 22, working in a lab dealing with PCB contamination, and taking classes on Great Lakes water ecology and seminars in Evolution, I came to the conclusion that global warming based on human activities was apparently untrue based on my ideology?

Quote:

Most of those bizarre beliefs aren't confined to 'the left', AFAIK - aside from perhaps the extreme behaviours of PeTA and 'GWB did it' as a branch of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They also don't have a dramatic effect on public policy like the anti-climate-change thing, various other anti-environmentalism things, or the anti-evolution thing. The truly harmful stuff seems (to me) to be mostly confined to the right.

Show me someone into power crystals I'll show you a left winger. But seriously angry man doesn't belong in this debate. I don't support ID, I think Ben Stein lost his marbles at some point, and I don't worry about climate change stone wallers because I think they are right even if its for the wrong reasons, I'm sure you don't mind those who think we have upset mother earth being on your side either.

Quote:

Another good point. I don't want to try to hijack your thread, but I did want to point out how I felt. Maybe sometime when I have more time and energy, I'll start a thread about which crazies are more widespread and harmful. For now, please accept my apologies if I've gone too far offtopic.

More than accepted. I just want you to get from this that I and many others like me do NOT approach this from an ideological stance, but from a scientific one. We do not see data that is convincing.

roachboy · 05-06-2008, 04:54 PM

ustwo--i know we don't agree on much of anything, and i am sure that it will come as no surprise that the mister science voice you sometimes adopt just strikes me as odd. but if you have time, could you please find a source that you find makes a case parallel to yours that you take to be legitimate and maybe link to it and explain why you find it compelling? i just want to understand what exactly you are pointing to that you find compelling in this regard...i'm not going to go after the source, i'll be nice promise--but i'd really like to see how an argument that you find persuasive about climate change/global warming would operate. like a real one please.

i'm curious about how the arguments work.
and i'm really curious about the degree of separation between argument, data and politics.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a 'Consequence' of Global Warming
Former vice president tells NPR's 'Fresh Air' cyclone is example of 'consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.'

Pasta all mighty....
http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...506160205.aspx

yellowmac · 05-06-2008, 05:28 PM

Regardless of what's going on with the climate, there are a few fairly well-established truths:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide is a trace constituent of the atmosphere.
Human civilization has reached a point where we can artificially influence the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's pretty simple to me: all other things being equal, as carbon dioxide goes up, the overall climate will warm due to the increased strength of the greenhouse effect. Yes, there is variance from year-to-year, but we're usually too short-sighted and can't realize that true climate change is a very long-term process.

In the battle pitting man versus nature, nature usually wins. Why should man be so arrogant as to artificially modify the planet that we live on? Shouldn't we all be good stewards and try to leave as little of a footprint as possible?

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowmac

Regardless of what's going on with the climate, there are a few fairly well-established truths:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide is a trace constituent of the atmosphere.
Human civilization has reached a point where we can artificially influence the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's pretty simple to me: all other things being equal, as carbon dioxide goes up, the overall climate will warm due to the increased strength of the greenhouse effect. Yes, there is variance from year-to-year, but we're usually too short-sighted and can't realize that true climate change is a very long-term process.

In the battle pitting man versus nature, nature usually wins. Why should man be so arrogant as to artificially modify the planet that we live on? Shouldn't we all be good stewards and try to leave as little of a footprint as possible?

Do you know what % of the global greenhouse gases we are producing?

By your logic alone we should just kill ourselves as guess what you are making CO2 right now.

Your post is full of massive assumptions.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Do you know what % of the global greenhouse gases we are producing?

Do you know what % makes a difference? Because it's a lot lower than conservatives would like people to think. Your post is full of massive assumptions.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Do you know what % of the global greenhouse gases we are producing?

By your logic alone we should just kill ourselves as guess what you are making CO2 right now.

Your post is full of massive assumptions.

The US is the largest producer of CO2 (currently about 25%)...CO2 emissions by country

And we know its primarily from power plants and fuel emissions.....DOE CO2 Information Analysis Center

How many times do you need to see the same data

Cynthetiq · 05-06-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Do you know what % makes a difference? Because it's a lot lower than conservatives would like people to think. Your post is full of massive assumptions.

so then you know the percentage and are holding out?

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 05:57 PM

More data.....Greenhouse Gas Emission Profiles by Country

Maybe a graphic of US sources of CO2 emissions will help.

source: DOE Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

What is the down side of cutting US emissions of CO2 from inefficent power plants and cars/light trucks (SUVs(......particularly if it can be done in a economically sustainable manner?

Someone please tell me.

05-05-2008, 12:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	The one thing I'll say (as someone who wouldn't dare consider himself anything more then casually knowledgeable on the subject and who also tends to believe that humanity's effect on global climate is minimal), is that part of my understanding on the subject is that climate change could cause more extreme weather, not necessarily simply warmer or cooler climates. So even if there was a colder and wetter winter, it wouldn't matter if the summer was hotter and drier then in the past. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

05-06-2008, 04:54 PM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo--i know we don't agree on much of anything, and i am sure that it will come as no surprise that the mister science voice you sometimes adopt just strikes me as odd. but if you have time, could you please find a source that you find makes a case parallel to yours that you take to be legitimate and maybe link to it and explain why you find it compelling? i just want to understand what exactly you are pointing to that you find compelling in this regard...i'm not going to go after the source, i'll be nice promise--but i'd really like to see how an argument that you find persuasive about climate change/global warming would operate. like a real one please. i'm curious about how the arguments work. and i'm really curious about the degree of separation between argument, data and politics. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-06-2008, 05:28 PM	#35 (permalink)
yellowmac Insane Location: left coast	Regardless of what's going on with the climate, there are a few fairly well-established truths: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is a trace constituent of the atmosphere. Human civilization has reached a point where we can artificially influence the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's pretty simple to me: all other things being equal, as carbon dioxide goes up, the overall climate will warm due to the increased strength of the greenhouse effect. Yes, there is variance from year-to-year, but we're usually too short-sighted and can't realize that true climate change is a very long-term process. In the battle pitting man versus nature, nature usually wins. Why should man be so arrogant as to artificially modify the planet that we live on? Shouldn't we all be good stewards and try to leave as little of a footprint as possible?

05-06-2008, 05:57 PM	#40 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	More data.....Greenhouse Gas Emission Profiles by Country Maybe a graphic of US sources of CO2 emissions will help. source: DOE Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center What is the down side of cutting US emissions of CO2 from inefficent power plants and cars/light trucks (SUVs(......particularly if it can be done in a economically sustainable manner? Someone please tell me. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-06-2008 at 06:03 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-05-2008, 12:13 PM	#3 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	Most likely methane will be the more severe culprit. But there are stores of CO2 in the permafrost that can outgass fairly soon. IS this material? who knows.

05-06-2008, 10:30 AM	#16 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Will, your position is sort of like phlogiston. It's not falsifiable, which means it isn't really scientific. If your theory is "confirmed" by whatever data show up no matter which way they go, then it's not much of a theory because it can't be falsified.

05-06-2008, 10:35 AM	#17 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I think an even more interesting question is: why does the pro- and anti-global "warming" argument split precisely down the political right/left dividing line? Surely that's not a coincidence?

05-06-2008, 01:24 PM	#24 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	that is indeed the question, Will. I don't even question that altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect the insulating effect of the atmosphere, in principle. My issue is the levels needed to do that, whether it's naturally occurring, how much the manmade effect is, whether there are other or counteracting causes, and on and on and on. For all I know the human-caused effect is dwarfed by variations in things like solar activity. I believe I read that there is a decrease in the polar ice cap of Mars - obviously not human caused. So far as I can tell we just don't have a firm enough basis to say there is a crisis requiring drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies (while tolerating massive pollution from China and India). I'm totally with the concept that we should be responsible stewards of the earth, but we also need to be responsible stewards of our families and economies. So far as I'm able to tell this whole global warming thing is being used as a cudgel for political purposes rather than as a scientific question.

05-06-2008, 02:39 PM	#29 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	DC Dux, the problem with your position is that it is fundamentally Malthusian, once you strip away all the nice slogans. Again: I think responsibility is a good thing, but part of being responsible is not running off half-cocked until we have a good handle on what needs to be done if anything, and why. The pollution issue is not analogous. Pollution is an externality. Living (which creates greenhouse gases - mere breathing does!) is not.