retsuki03

From what I have read, there is absolutely no conclusive proof that CO2 causes global warming. Also, even if it did, it effects the temperature at such and alarmingly small rate (.6 C since the industrial revolution!?) that worrying about it in our lifetime seems foolish. Also, as I understand it, global warming would provide a net benefit to agriculture anyway.

So seriously, what is the big deal?

Environmentalist please opine.

Pacifier

yep, lets screw our kids. Why worry about something that could affect them?

Yep, as long as you don't live in the Pacific or near a coast. Or do you mean "underwater agriculture"?

The deal is, that our planet has to deal with a lot of natural caused changes (ide ages, hot periods etc.) so I don't think it is wise to throw some extra spanners in the works. We should try to keep our impact as small as possible because when we see the big changes we made it might be too late.

as for you claim about no evidence, a recent study:
http://www.physorg.com/news3118.html
more at google:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

irateplatypus

i'm concerned about finding better sources of energy but global warming itself doesn't worry me that much.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

retsuki03

Pacifier-

I want to see something from a peer review journal or something with dissenting opinions. There is lots of information on the internet. I can find something that says that says global warming is a myth.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

I would like to hear the scientists argue with each other. It is dangerous to read some report in the news and assume it is trustworthy.

I read some of your suggested reading: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/sci....warming.reut/

To me it seems that Tim Barnett, wants us to believe global warming because the planet is obviously warming. Trust him, he is Tim Barnett, brilliant scientist of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. It says he took a few temps from around the world and put them in his computer model. This does NOT prove global warming. This proves that the computer model he made came up with the result he was probably hoping for.

I am not here to say global warming is real or a myth. I am just saying, I am not convinced that it is a threat to our life or even our children's lives.

stevo

I heard that if it wasn't for the greenhouse gases we've been pumping into the atmosphere we would be in an ice age right now. When I get a chance I'll try to find some sort of documentation.

Superbelt

http://library.curtin.edu.au/infotrekk/trek6.html

Or go to a university/public library and use lexis nexis to search for peer reviewed journal articles.

I can give you lots of articles on it (outside of links I already gave you. Over lunch I will review some recent journal articles that should be relevant.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...contentid=2971
ED is an environmental advocacy and lobbying group, they have very good resources if you want the environmental side of it.
It includes reports of the current science as well.
http://www.undoit.org/undoit_article.cfm#sec5

Superbelt

Not in, but moving towards it rather than away from it. That is still a long way away. It's a hundred thousand year cycle and we are only four to six thousand years out of the warming phase. So, we have a long way to go.

retsuki03

Currently reading -> http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...al_warming.pdf

RAGEAngel9

Something that I have never seen brought up (or hardly ever ) is what effect are things like the Ozone layer holes and mass amouts of smog in places like LA having?

yatzr

i firmly believe that global warming is a myth created by scientists to keep their funding. The articles like the one retsuki03 posted have more proof that it is a myth than all the articles I've ever seen saying it's true.

I see it as a parallel to the armageddon. People keep saying the world will be flooded, but it hasn't...it's just fear mongering.

__________________
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

soundmotor

Nope, not worried. I live in New England & would be happy with a winter that is 15-30 degrees warmer. A sea rise would be nice too as it would be closer to my front door then.

We'd also have a longer growing season, I could ditch the whole "layering" concept to dressing, my heating bill would drop 90%, my car would not need to be warmed up in the morning thus I'd get better mileage. And on & on.

soundmotor

soundmotor

Any Angelenos on this board?

I lived in Socal until the mid 1970's and the smog was so bad, my lungs would hurt for days if I was outside exercising during a "smog alert". I've been back to LA 6 times in the last 3 years and each time I was there I was stunned to see BLUE SKIES! Unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, drastic reductions in particulates & CO, etc. at work now.

soundmotor

soundmotor

Indeed! Conservation is the easiest to start doing today. Long-term, solar is very attractive but there will need to be ready-made solutions that consumers can adapt to existing structures and see an immediate financial benefit.

soundmotor

StanT

No one really understands the earths warming and cooling cycles. It may take 1,000s of years to completely prove anything. In the meantime, it seems that dumping poisons in the atmosphere and in our water is a bad idea, regardless. As a species, we really need to clean up our act, global warming or not. I can teach my dog not to crap where she lives, you'd think we could do the same with people.

Superbelt

retsuki01: Interesting article and the guy is right about alot of things but ignores others.
I sort of question this journal when I see an article titled "LaRouche on the Pagan worship of Newton." Please tell me this isn't the whacko LaRouche I think it is....

Anyway, the article is right that solar cycles determine our climate in the natural world. Our oscillation from a circular to ellyptical orbit are what has our planet vary from ice age, to warm period to ice age again.
But the CO2 levels we have now are not natural. In nature large amounts of CO2 may be spewn forth at one time by volcanoes and other such things. But when these large amounts get shot out, saturation happens very quickly and the concentrations fall out relatively quickly.
Humans send a steady stream of CO2 into the atmosphere every day and we aren't stopping. We are creating an artificial, constant blanket over the earth.
There are certain absolute properties of carbon and it's ability to absorb heat. We know these, can measure them and can measure the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere as it rises with human emissions. The numbers add up

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience.asp
Click on the years to access journal articles from the National Academy of Science, Science Magazine, American Geophysical Union, USDOD... etc.

yatzr: There is just as much money in researching negatively on global warming (especially from the fossil fuel industry) It's not about the money, it's about the research.

soundmotor: It doesn't work that way. there will be a general warming of the earth, but global warming will affect the poles most, that 0.6 degree celsius rise in earths temperature is much greater at the poles and almost non existant at the equator. The melting of the freshwater polar ice caps will destroy the North Atlantic Oscilation. The North Atlantic Oscilation is what keeps the northern US and UK from being an even colder place. take a look at our latitudes and compare them with siberia and alaska. That is what we would be like without NAO. The NAO is like a river that pulls warm water up to us from the Gulf and warms us more than our location would allow. It shuts down and that water stays put and we freeze.

soundmotor

Ah, I'm getting you. The poles melt & the equator freezes so instead of poles we get an ice belt. Is that what you are saying? Still sounds to me though that New England is the best place to be.

soundmotor

tecoyah

I would think pretty much Everyone living in California for the last week.....is a bit worried about Global Warming.

The effects are complicated and there is unlikely to be conclusive evidence of the impact until it has already begun.....kinda like this week.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

drakers

.......... ..........Sorry couldn't help myself. So our pollution from the last few hundred years have helped prevent an Ice Age, give me a break. 200 years is a microcosm in the history of the world, Ice Age take much longer to occur, especially when most of the pollution that has occured has happened mostly in the last 50-75 years. Please show some evidence to this unsupportive point, I would to see "who" the expert was that would say something like that. Check out the North Pole if you don't think the climate hasn't gotten warmer, I think you would agree that the majority of the evidence does lean towards our pollution is causing global warming. The evidence is in a many of journals which I'm sure other people will post to show the "little" documentation that there is to point to my conclustion. Do you think Bush is listening to all scientists or the small minority that actually think there is nothing wrong with our climate. Please show some documentation to make your point so I can send the mountain of evidence against it. Good Luck.

__________________
Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

tecoyah

OK....how about the E.P.A. as a credible source of information.


Climate

An Introduction
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases.
Our Changing Atmosphere

Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
Information on how the greenhouse affect effects the earth. Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today’s levels.
Changing Climate

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.


Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.

Calculations of climate change for specific areas are much less reliable than global ones, and it is unclear whether regional climate will become more variable.

Check out the Link.....it is enlightening

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Superbelt

Actually the poles melt and the equator gets slightly warmer, but no where near the heating that the poles get.

Read the other part of my post about the North Atlantic Oscillation and realize that New England isn't an altogether great place to be.

highthief

While I agree it is difficult to say with certainty how much man-made global warming will have, and indeed whether (in the short term anyway) it will have a deleterious effect on our civilization, the things that do concern me are that A) the effects are very hard to reverse, once begun and B) the results will not be temporary, but something we would have to live with for, literally, hundreds if not thousands of years.

Those reasons are, I think, enough to warrant taking the foot off the gas pedal of global warming - and it appears the rest of the civilized world agrees, outside the US.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

retsuki03

I don't really consider the EPA as a credible source. They have an agenda just like everyone else. It is useful to examine both sides of an arguement.


The world has already been much warmer than it is now.

"Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a few hundred years it was warmer than it is now."

I think that many of the people who care about the environment (being most people) don't really know any information about it. Many environmentalists promote a culture of fear without actually knowing any hard facts. It leads to disinformation and confusion. Everyday you can look up a story on the news that says the world is ending or changing dramatically because of this or that. It scares a person, and the person then becomes opposed to this or that. It is sensationalism and often transparently biased.

tecoyah

I will bow before your understanding of the science involved in this debate. As I find the likelyhood of fifty some-odd scientists working together on a problem attempting to force an agenda......unlikely.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

retsuki03

First of all, the rest of the world does not agree. However, even if they did- would that make them right just because they all agree?
Does the rest of the civilized world include India or China? The same people who bitch about Kyoto would bitch about unemployment or a stagnant economy that would result if we agreed to it.

It seems to me that they just haven't thought the full implications through.

Many assume that Bush hates the environment and loves corporations, just because he is a Republican. Bush is not the elitist. The people who condemn him as being an idiot are the elitists and the real idiots. The envirnmental effects of the implementation of Kyoto vs. the economic impact make the decision of whether or not to participate staggeringly easy.

Willravel

What worries me is the fact that anyone would be pushing an agenda either way on this. Someone is right and someone is wrong; it's as simple as that. If global warming does not exist, then it is a scapegoat for environmentalists who are running low on ammunition against corporations and industries. If there is such a thing as global warming, then the corporations and industries are lying to us and selling the future of mankind for a profit today. The worst part is that the scientific organizations with good reputations are contradicting each other on this, so I don't know who to trust. Near as I can tell, no one really knows.

It would be foolish of me to try and take a side on this. For now the contradictions worry me more than the global warming or lack thereof.

jorgelito

Wait, retsuki03, for someone who purports to not take either side it seems clear that you do NOT believe in global warming.

There is no proof that Kyoto is bad for the economy. I have repeatedly asked for proof or reference in the Kyoto thread but have been ignored so that people can continue arguing amongst themesleves instead of "nipping it in the bud".

Regardless of whether global warming is happening, just look at the weather patterns and outside your window. Doesn't matter the science, obviously hedging our bets or trying to improve our environment isn't a bad thing. Who could be against clean air and clean water? Poolution does not discriminate. Forest fires in Indonesia have fallout all the way the American MidWest (last year or the year before). There was a measureable difference in air quality.

I don't care who's in the White House, I DO care about clean air and clean water. Richard Nixon created the EPA for cryin' out loud!!(LOL).

I live in LA, and I definitely see, feel the effects. A report showed school children (of all race, socio-economic background cause remember, pollution doesn't discriminate) have an abnormal rate of asthma. Which in turn leads to longer absences in school, which leads to reduced funding for schools.

The pollution also contributes to acid rain. Not too sure of the efffects but acid rain just doesn't sound good too me.

My friends in San Diego can see LA (by the brown cloud above it) hundreds of miles away. After stringent anti-pollution laws drastically reduced pollution levels, recent changes to the law (more lax on pollution) have reversed all the benefits.

Pollution also contributes to beach closures every summer. Kind of sucks when we're known as a beach town and the beaches are clesed due to pollution. Same goes with fishing. Not safe to eat any of the fish caught in the LA area.

I don't see why the issue of pollution has to framed in left-right or libeal-conservative diads. It affects us all. Plus, as a conservative, I do care about the environment and like to CONSERVE resource (it just makes more sense Nothing wrong with that).

Fear mongering is silly, denial is silly. Just exercise common sense.

Thank you.

zhevek

It hasn't rained here in Oregon in almost a month, other than a very few showers. Oregon, mind you... in the winter. California is getting more than double it's normal rain.

Freak weather will continue to get weirder and stronger as the atmosphere is more fucked up.

__________________
Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil

retsuki03

I said I am not convinced that global warming is a threat. That does not mean that I believe in Global Warming or not. It means that even if there is Global Warming, I don't think it is a threat.

I can't offer proof either. But I can offer some idea as to why many think Kyoto is bad for the economy. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf

I am from Houston where the pollution rivals and often excedes LA. I now live in Austin and I have heard that the pollution from Houston is so bad it effects our air quaility here. At the same time, having lived in houston for 19 years and Austin for 2, I have not noticed any difference in the air apart for less humidity. I am all for clean air/land, the question is at what cost.

Pollution causes asthma? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1099418.stm

Once again, I am from Houston where the water is very polluted. The fish taste fine. I think it would be great if the water was nice and pretty, but it isn't.

I agree with your there.

jorgelito

Fair enough, we are essentially in the same boat. Good counter post there, I like your rebuts.

I was thinking that Houston is one of the most polluted cities in US. There must be some studies done there. It is "forbidden" or at least advised not to eat the fish here (signs posted LA County Ordinance or something). The sewage here drains straight into the ocean (Santa Monica Bay) untreated. I'm no scientist but that just sounds gross.

I agree cost is an issue but I don't think it's impossible. I think a little careful planning and common sense, a good policy can be produced and implemented.

The thing is, while you may not be affected (I don't think I am or have, not sure) it has been suggested that many have been affected, in the same way that there are lots of smokers who never get lung cancer and many non-smokers who do (go figure).

So I guess, there's a lot of compelling arguments, in the end, we have to decide for ourselves. It seems for every credible argument out there, there's a credible counter.

It's kind of like asking economists how's the economy doing? You'll get a ton of different answers.

So, in that case, just like the environment, I look around me and try to exercise good judgement the best I can. I notice many people have lost their jobs, and a few are buying Hummers (not so much lately). The one constant: Prices have gone up, up, up! Especially gas, food, clothes, rent, health care, and education. I suppose the ecnomoy is good for some, and bad for others.

In the same vein, the environment is bad in some areas (LA, Houston) and good in others ( I dunno, Alaska?, canada?).

BUT, one thing's for sure: No one is immune to any of the effects (of economics or environment). Therefore, it's in all our interest to make sound policy concerning these matters. I just doesn't make sense to shit in our drinking water or waste all our resources ( I tend to be a hoarder - I have a six-month water and food supply at home). Conservaton, recycling has paid off for me. Make it more attractive and we should see results.

Zeld2.0

Heh, never seen it rain so much in CA in the last few months in a very long long long time - 5 straight days of rain scared me.

FWIW given that the Earth cycles take a long time, we have little way of knowing the long term effects given our impact has only been felt in the last few decades, which is but a flash in the scope of the Earth.

The idea of global warming is somewhat wrong - it warms up to a point, then can have the reverse effects, where it cools the earth. The bigger question, imo isn't whether its effects are what are stated - that the earth gets unbearably warm. The bigger problem, imo, is whether human effects are accelerating or altering Earth cycles.

For instance, a theory is that warming will melt the ice at the poles. This has been observed in the Arctic and Antarctic ice where land previously covered in snow has snowly melted - snow and ice previously permanently frozen.

The theory is that if so much water is melted into the ocean, cooling the currents, many places currently kept warm by those currents, will slowly freeze. Take Europe for example. They're at much more northern latitudes than most of the United States, yet they often have warmer weather than we do. That is because of the warm ocean currents - should they cool down, suddenly, temperatures drop, and bad stuff happens, perhaps accelerating an Ice Age there.

Asking for warmer weather in New England is fine - but hey, if its 15-30 degrees warmer there, imagine what it would be like for other parts in the country, when 100 degree weather in the summer is unbearable 115-130 degree weather. I dont like the idea of bringing Death Valley to L.A.

As for finding alternate energy sources - sure, but I dont see why that has to exclude caring about the environment. They're not mutually exclusive. The path lies in fusion power IMO - the current problem is of course making them self-sufficient. We know how to contain it, and in Europe, one of their fusion plants is running at 0.7 sufficiency (as in it can power 70% of itself, it needs to be above 1.0 to be self sufficient in power). A middle-sized lake has enough hydrogen/deuterium to power a small country for 1000+ years. Also, given that hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe, its not a bad prospect.

But IMO doing what we can do now to slow the use of energy until we get there is important - keep in mind that it takes fuel and power to build those fusion plants. Lots of it. If we one day do run out, we'd be in a shitty situation when we need to build those plants, and can't. And anyways, while I think the big thign is humans will need to move off this planet to other planets/space, I say, why not take care of what you have now? Its that simple to me.

C4 Diesel

Eh, I find my opinion relatively unimportant, but while global warming isn't the biggest of my concerns, I'm pissed that it's getting completely ignored by many countries.


Global warming info & news:

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - yearly report brochures

UK global warming commitee reports

Greenhouse Gases Warm Oceans

Oxford & WWF study claims increase in global temperatures of 2*C by 2060 (or as early as 2026)

This one is clutch - I've learned about this before (READ THIS ONE!):
Scientists have underestimated the greenhouse effect - Decreases in particulate will f*ck us

That's plenty for now, I'm sure.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

retsuki03

Global warming info & news:

Discusses what to do and possibilites of changing climate, not what causes it or if indeed the climate is truly changing.

Same as above.

Addressed in a previous post. The main problem I have with this is it is a computer model. It even says "compelling" evidence, not proof. If you have links to the actual science of the study, or peer reviewed journals I would love to take a look.

Again. There is no science. Dr Mark New of Oxford University does not offer and evidence to show why he arrived at this conclusion. Although, again, I would like to see it.

Clutch?

How many SUV's were those nasty American's driving around in during the Ice Age? From what I have read this is has mostly been covered in the UK and not the rest of the world, because a lot of people don't agree. At least, however, this guy attempts to explain how he has arrived at his conclusions, although, he neglects to mention any possible problems with his theory.

Analysis
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

jorgelito

You know, I think we'll never really know. It's hard to "test" any theories on this. Aside from computer modeling. So it really comes down to whom you believe (there are plenty of competent and knowledgeable scientists on both sides) and what you personally believe. Computer modeling is a common method among scientists (I think). It's up to you how much weight you want to give it. Isn't an MRI 'computer modeling'? Aren't alot of buildings designed and built based on computer modeling? The main problem is there is no other way to test it other than to let it run its course. But the problem is that we only get to do it once. How about running tests in a "biosphere" or some other "mini-earth" mock up and simulating the conditions?

Zeld2.0, I also live in LA and I agree with your contention of alternate energy sources. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I believe we can profit and conserve etc. ( I just wish I knew how).

Whatever global warming is happening, one thing is for sure: I don't like temperature rising. I would rather it get 'cooler' cause I can always put on another sweater but if it gets too hot and I'm down to my skivies, well then I'm running out of options.

If people in New England welcome global warming cause they think it's too cold, well, that's a bit short-sighted. Just move to Florida.

The global warming debate is like the evolution debate in that regard: No conclusive proof - there's compelling evidence, but no conclusive proof. I guess we can just pick and choose what we want to believe then.

Zeld2.0

Well there is proof but its that type of proof you get from an experiment that takes 1000 years perhaps to get a conclusion. Of course, 1000 years haven't passed, so to claim anyone has the conclusive proof that the other is wrong is futile at best.

As for me, I err on the side of caution - the point is, if I dont have to waste resources, if I don't have to pollute, etc. then I don't do it. Its like the gun analogy - better to have and not need than to need and not have. Well its the same thing here - better to conserve/preserve and be wrong and have no such thing as global warming than to pollute and be wrong and have such a thing as global warming.

C4 Diesel

Yes, clutch... You're obviously missing the idea on this one. Yes, a similar increase in CO2 levels have increased temperatures much more in the past, however in the past there was significatly less particulate in the air.

Okay, so the story goes a little like this... Back in the industrial revolution, humans started pumping out greehouse gases into the atmosphere, which according to modern scientists should have increased global temperatures, however it didn't because there were significant particulate releases along with it, which decreased the amount of energy the Earth recieved from the Sun by reflecting photons back out of the atmosphere before they hit the Earth, and thus counterbalancing the greenhouse effect with an almost equal amount of cooling.

More recently, humanity's rate of CO2 production is still accelerating, while the amount of particulate we are producing is slowing, mostly due to environmental regulations which are harder on particulate than CO2. As there becomes less and less particulate comparative to CO2, the greenhouse effect will overwhelm the cooling effect of the particulate, and the average temperature of the Earth will rise at an incredible rate.

For those of you who think it would be nice if it was a little warmer, just don't forget that any significant increase in temperature would have major effects on climate (and thus agriculture), could cause mass extinctions of plant and animal species, and I'm sure do a few other nasty things that I'm not thinking of at the present time. Also, if the earth warms up 5*C, then what? Let it warm another 5*C? We're going to have to put a stop to it eventually, or eventually it's going to become to hot for humanity. If it's going to be necessary anyway, then we might as well get to work on it now.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

C4 Diesel

Of course there's no science there... It's a news brief. The whole idea is to give you the point without drawing you into a 10-page essay.

Here, you want the science, have it.
WWF Arctic Report

Dr. New's report is in there (page 7) along with a few others. If you want to go read it and try to point out something he did wrong, go ahead. Oh, let me guess... You're not going to believe anything it concludes because it's a simulation. Well, how else are we going to do climate prediction? Can you propose a method of climate prediction, taking into account all the significant variables, which doesn't involve a computational model?

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

retsuki03

Well, your "Clutch" article shows just how accurate these computer models can be. The problem is knowing all the significant variables.

From your article:
So I guess that means even the models that predicted the worst are quite potentially completely wrong. The more modest predictions would, of course, be way fucking off.

This only proves how far we are from knowing the right variables to predict the climate in the future. The local weatherman can often not even tell me if it is going to rain on the weekend. He uses the information he knows, and makes a guess. Just like these computer models do. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. Apparently, up until your ground breaking clutch article- all of them were wrong.

So basically your article is a demonstration of how erroneous information can be used to develop often entirely wrong climate predicting computer models in conjunction with yellow journalism to convince people that there is a cataclysmic change pending in the environment all the while getting people to watch the BBC and arousing a "sceptical response from other scientists."

Damn, you're right. That IS clutch.

The truth be told, I just don't buy it. I have looked on the internet can find could very few articles supporting Stanhill. Neither your article, or the Analysis of your article that I posted before address the prospect of cosmic radiation. However, the article by Dr. Jaworowski I posted before does. I honestly wonder if you even looked at either.

My general view is that the prediction models are inaccurate. Your article makes the case for me.

But maybe your right, and I might be just missing the idea.

retsuki03

Rather than argue about the computer models, lets examine a central observation of this panda organization- "that the earth will have warmed by 2°C relative to pre-industrial temperatures by between 2026 and 2060."

This apparently is a big fucking deal, and if you haven't heard yet, all the polar bears are going to die. It's a big fucking deal you see- dead polar bears. How tragic. Have I garnished any sympathy yet? Hell, penguins are even cuter. And shit! They will die too! This is horrible fucking news, I better run out and buy that hybrid car or perhaps first I should scold my neighbor for driving the truck he obviously doesn't need.

Ok, enough sarcasm.

Anyway, the earth has risen 0.6 C since around the 1850s right? And let's see, the temp. during the middle ages was over 1.5 C higher than the current temps. So that means the the earth has already been 2.0+ C higher than the pre-industrial revolution time. And surprise? The fucking bears are still here (and those cute little penguins).

This also makes an astoundingly solid case for CO2 induced global warming due to the large number of coal burning power plants and SUV's in America during the period 900 to 1100 AD. (just a little more sarsasm )

thinktank

Bingo... see, i'm no weatherologist, thats not what i went to school for... but seems strange to me that there have been what, like 3 tornados in Californa in the last week... and like 50 total in recorded history? A grip of hurricanes last year smashing Florida on the constant. I dont need a fancy panel of 50 scientists to tell me something is fucked up.

C4 Diesel

I believe the article said "predictions", which in my book would not single out computer models, but all predictions made. It seems to me that you're taking a general statement about the accuracy of predictions in general and applying it specifically to computer models, which seems to suit your position in this debate quite nicely.

And I said that when? I'm not saying that other people's ideas are wrong, and I don't believe Dr. Cox or Dr. Stanhill were either. I was merely presenting a piece of information which few people had likely considered.

I take it you're not a scientist, or you wouldn't be speaking like that. Please, indicate what information is erroneous. Being that we're speaking of a complex aspect of the FUTURE, I guess we can't really know what would be erroneous or not, now do we?

Yes, I've looked at both. They both make interesting points. Before you go giving Dr. Jaworowski's article preferential treatment, think about some things... Beside that Dr. Jaworowski is obviously biased, this magazine article would never be accepted as a scientific journal review. About half of his references are not even from scientific studies, but rather other magazine articles, newspapers, and interviews. That would be the equivalent of me stating that my opinion is truth and citing the BBC article. Mind you, the other half are credible, but I wonder why he has to back up many of his supposed "fact" with non-scientific sources. Perhaps he just wants to believe he is right. (Not to say he's not... I think we've established that no one can totally accurately predict the future). Oh, and your previous statement of: would apply to this magazine and Dr. Jaworowski's article as well, wouldn't it?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I just want to make a comment about the WWF's use of the article. The WWF's goal is to save the animals, and shit the bed every time something with fur dies. I think most of us would agree that they can go overboard in many situations (and perhaps this is one of them) but the purpose of my bringing it up is merely to indicate the possibility for severe climate change, and perhaps one could also derive from that how a high rate of climate change could, over a not-too-long time frame have an adverse effect on the environment which humanity would also feel the effects of. Trust me, the LAST people that I would take my environmental position from is the WWF, as they also have quite a well-defined agenda... or could I call that a crusade? Haha...

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...