Global warming

[Byzantine Mercenary]

during the course of another disscussion in the forums i saw the subject of global warming (very briefly) come up, and i wanted to get some opinions, i personally have always held that it is real and very threatening and it was more a matter of establishing how much will change will occur and how best to prevent it,

is there anyone out there that doesn't agree?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Somebody make it go away . Not again please dont get me started :help:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

what do you mean?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I mean this should be a sticky. Its one of the most debated topics in the history of these boards along with Israel - Palestine and Christianity and Islam.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

i agree,

it is a far reaching topic,

but i think that as a scientific disscussion views (should) change as the data does, so a disscussion may well be more fruitful on this topic then a disscussion on politics and religion?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so a disscussion may well be more fruitful on this topic then a disscussion on politics and religion?

Since all three are intertwined I doubt it. Obviously youve never seen this disscussion. I will fight you tooth and nail :laugh4:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

yeah ive been gone a while :laugh4:

im more talking about the science of it then who should do what, what area of global warming is being disputed is it the warming or its suggested cause?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

what area of global warming is being disputed is it the warming or its suggested cause?

No one denies its happening. And its slightly more than a suggested cause.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

exactly, so you dont dispute global warming?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

exactly, so you dont dispute global warming?
I dont dispute the planets getting warmer if thats what you mean. If thats is what you mean you might as well close this thread because not a soul here will argue that point.

[Xiahou]

I dont dispute the planets getting warmer if thats what you mean. If thats is what you mean you might as well close this thread because not a soul here will argue that point.
Now if you want to talk about how much warmer, how warm is too warm, and what is making the planet warmer.....

[JR-]

during the course of another disscussion in the forums i saw the subject of global warming (very briefly) come up, and i wanted to get some opinions, i personally have always held that it is real and very threatening and it was more a matter of establishing how much will change will occur and how best to prevent it,

is there anyone out there that doesn't agree?
The earth is certainly warming naturally. The earth has always fluctuated greatly in temeprature.

We are certainly having an impact on this fluctuation. Though what percentage this forms of the total is unknown.

The real question for me, is whether it is better to spend human wealth on accommodating humans to this new environment, or whether that wealth should be spent trying freeze the world in its current climatic state?

The first option represents what we, and every other successful species, have always done in the face of climactic adversity; evolved ourselves and our way of living to fit the new reality.

The second option represents what every failed civilisation in history has tried in the face of its decline; it has tried to reinforce against its failing and is in essence similar to extinct species.

Of course we should continue to enact environmental legislation that prevents us poisoning the land we live on, and yes we should encourage clean industry because efficiency is something to be desired from an economic standpoint as well as an environmental one, but most of all we should promote efficient consumption that reduces the necessary level of production.

However for me, the idea of trying to halt climate change on earth is very akin to attempting to air-condition your car whilst having the windows open, you are in essence trying to air-condition the entire world which is:
a) impossible - much like ignoring the impact of the sun/universe on our little earth. *
b) grossly inefficient in achieving its aims - money would be better spent providing weather-safe housing and infrastructure, clean water, and medical care. **
c) unethical - who determined that our present global climactic state is the optimum level ever achieved in earths history, and for whom? ***

* Q - "ah, but what about the scientific consensus?" A - this is foolish, we know too little to form any consensus in any direction.

** Q - "ah, but why don't we build houses and reduce CO2?" A - this is foolish, high public spending damages growth, and growth lifts people out of poverty.

*** Q - "ah, but thinking you know better is very arrogant is it not?" A - this is foolish, some people will benefit, some people will suffer, those people who are not given the opportunity to adapt will die, those who won't adapt in spite of the ability to do so will deserve to die.

This is of course a greatly simplified view, i too would like to see broadly stable global climate (after all, not having to adapt to a new reality is nice and easy), but for me it boils down to this:
Will humankind see greater future benefit were we to spend 0.5% of World GDP for the next 100 years from either; halting CO2 level change, or; improving the human condition?
I would argue for the latter, after all the earth is in constant fluctuation, and we will always have to adapt to meet it.

What happens when we get the next magnetic reversal and thus have no mechanism to protect us from solar and galactic radiation? It could happen any time from tomorrow onwards, but it is overdue and will result in roughly one thousand years of earth's irradiation.
Judging by the current response, we will have thousands of scientists claiming a unanimous consensus that we should spend the totality of human wealth digging to the centre of the earth whereupon we will install moon sized paddles to force circulation of the outer core, thus generating a new artificial magnetic field!

It is also (IMO), an act of staggering hubris, that we might imagine we have enough knowledge and power to control global climate at will.

So there you are, my views in brief.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The first option represents what we, and every other successful species, have always done in the face of climactic adversity; evolved ourselves and our way of living to fit the new reality.

The second option represents what every failed civilisation in history has tried in the face of its decline; it has tried to reinforce against its failing and is in essence similar to extinct species.

Slaves adapt to their environment. Masters adapt the environment to themselves. Successful species don't settle with adapting themselves to what exists, but make sure that what exists remains: population sizes in animal herds are regulated so they don't extinct their food sources. Successful predators don't extinct their prey, successful herbivores don't create deserts out of the fertile land.

By the way, no animal species is adapting itself to a new environment. It's the environment that brutally kills loads of animals who can't stand the new environment, until only a small number of animals, which may be an entirely different species, are still alive.

Not to mention the fact that all methods for adapting mankind to living in higher temperatures involve increased pollution which increases temperature even further. Air conditioning only contributes to more global warming. Only way to turn the tide is to 1. halt emissions and imposing population growth limitations, or 2. global mass death of human beings by war, starvation, overheating and genocide, or 3. hope that through some miracle we can learn to improve our technology about 10-1000 times faster than we've ever improved technology before in history.

I prefer option no. 1.

[Rodion Romanovich]

you are in essence trying to air-condition the entire world
No, pollution supporters are trying to barbeque the entire world.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Slaves adapt to their environment. Masters adapt the environment to themselves.

And this is the big problem with all you global warming guys. We are not the masters of the earth. Just look at all those jerks who live near volcanoes. Nothing you can do when mother nature raises her wrath. Nature is the master not man. 99% of every species that has ever been is now extinct.


No, pollution supporters are trying to barbeque the entire world.

There are no pollution supporters.

[R'as al Ghul]

Only way to turn the tide is to 1. halt emissions and imposing population growth limitations, [..]
I prefer option no. 1.

Well, if we stop the emissions the effect of Global dimming (darkening of the atmosphere by pollution) will decrease, the warming will accelerate and the effect on the earth will be even stronger than today.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It is also IMO an act of staggering hubris, that we might imagine we have enough knowledge and power to control global climate at will.

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~tbw/wc.notes/13.air.pollution/smoke.stack.pollution.jpg
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/7/T6545_ocean_pollution.jpg
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Coastal-Ecology/Preserves/Preserves-images/pollution.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Air_.pollution_1.jpg/350px-Air_.pollution_1.jpg
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%20THE%20OCEANS/Images%20HFTO/galveston_bay_pollution_1.jpg
http://www.destinationchine.com/dalaowai/public/Shanghai/shanghai-pollution.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, if we stop the emissions the effect of Global dimming (darkening of the atmosphere by pollution) will decrease, the warming will accelerate and the effect on the earth will be even stronger than today.
No. Incoming light has shorter wavelengths than outgoing light. Getting rid of gases that are better at stopping long wavelengths will lower temperatures. I don't think you've understood the principle behind global warming.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
It is also IMO an act of staggering hubris, that we might imagine we have enough knowledge and power to control global climate at will.

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu....pollution.jpg
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/medi..._pollution.jpg
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Coastal-E.../pollution.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.destinationchine.com/dala...-pollution.jpg

Maybe I should post some pictures of the antartic or Alaska :laugh4:

This is my biggest gripe with global warming


* Q - "ah, but what about the scientific consensus?" A - this is foolish, we know too little to form any consensus in any direction.


We dont have near enough knowledge and the cure could be worse than the disease. Its not like it threatens to end the world or man kind. Better to learn to adapt than play god. The earth will change drasticly no matter what we do.

[Rodion Romanovich]

And this is the big problem with all you global warming guys. We are not the masters of the earth.

Perhaps then, if we're not masters of it, we should stop trying to barbeque it and adapt to it, instead of changing it significantly.



Nature is the master not man.

Good that you're finally realizing this.



There are no pollution supporters.
How can you support continued pollution without being a pollution supporter?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Maybe I should post some pictures of the antartic or Alaska :laugh4:

I can do that for you:
http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/alaskawaste.htm



This is my biggest gripe with global warming

We dont have near enough knowledge and the cure could be worse than the disease. Its not like it threatens to end the world or man kind. Better to learn to adapt than play god. The earth will change drasticly no matter what we do.
We're doing something actively to increase global temperatures. I find it odd that you can at the same time say we don't know anything about it, and that we still should continue to actively work to do something we don't know if it will increase temperatures by 5 degrees or 30 degrees in the coming 10 years of the coming 30 years.

[JR-]

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~tbw/wc.notes/13.air.pollution/smoke.stack.pollution.jpg
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/7/T6545_ocean_pollution.jpg
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Coastal-Ecology/Preserves/Preserves-images/pollution.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Air_.pollution_1.jpg/350px-Air_.pollution_1.jpg
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%20THE%20OCEANS/Images%20HFTO/galveston_bay_pollution_1.jpg
http://www.destinationchine.com/dalaowai/public/Shanghai/shanghai-pollution.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

thanks for the vast pile of irrelevance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

thanks for the vast pile of irrelevance.
You're welcome

[R'as al Ghul]

No. Incoming light has shorter wavelengths than outgoing light. Getting rid of gases that are better at stopping long wavelengths will lower temperatures. I don't think you've understood the principle behind global warming.

So, you dispute the idea of Global Dimming or why do you think I've not understood?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Global Warming Side A -- Mankind is at fault:

Presumption #1: The current global climate, or at least the climate extent at the beginning of the 20th century, is more-or-less ideal and only "natural" variations thereto should be tolerated.

Presumption #2: Human emissions of "greenhouse" gasses/pollutants are making a statistically significant impact on increased global temperatures.

Note: "Human-made GW" proponents view this to be a proven fact and do not consider the evidence therefore to be in dispute. They would not label it a presumption.

-- From this model, the emphasis should be on a rapid and fairly radical reduction of those human activities that encourage global warming so as to return Terra to a heating/cooling cycle that is "natural." Essentially, they see continued behavior in our current mode as insane since they believe it to be actively suicidal.

Side Note: One of the things "Human-made GW" opponents find annoying in this is the implication that humans are an abberation to and not part of their own environment.


Global Warming Side B -- Mankind is not at fault:

Presumption #1: Yes, Terra is warming, but the primary agent for this is natural: Sol's radiation and those emissions that occur naturally via volcanoes etc. Human influence on such changes are statistically insignificant.

Preumption #2: Too much of the scientific "proof" for humankind's responsibility for Global Warming has become conflated with a larger "anti-haves" political agenda and is therefore suspect.

-- From this model, the emphasis should be on developing a better sense of what and how climate changes occur so that we can more readily adapt to same. Radical restructuring of human endeavor would be, at best, premature.


Thanks, Byz Merc, for starting htis up again. Remind me to kill you in a mafia game sometime.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

ok this is what ive been told about global dimming

global dimming is caused by small particles in the atmosphere that reflect incoming light or act as cloud nuclei, they can be produced when you burn stuff like coal or diesel and from Sulfate aerosols, as we have cleaned up our act and switched to fuels that produce less soot and have stopped using as many Sulfate aerosols the effect has reduced, so while stopping emissions of soot or Sulfate aerosols could indeed warm the planet up stopping cleaner co2 emissions, in general, wont.

incedentally i would not regard humans as an abbarition to the natural enviroment, it it the technologys that we employ that are such, the plants and animals of earth are simply not adapted to them.

also i believe that current reasearch shows that this warming is at such a rate that does not generally occur naturally and definately is not set to occur at a rate which is slow enough for earths animals and plants to adapt to via evoloution, of course climate change is not nessesarly wrong as such but we will most likely see a dramatic reduction in biodiversity as life adjusts, and a good deal of human lives could be at risk

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I can do that for you:
http://environment.about.com/od/heal...laskawaste.htm

No picture there.

Heres some examples of recent global warming. laugh.gif


....On Thursday April 19, 2007 Canadian Coast Guard ice breakers are smashing through pack ice in a bid to free about 100 sealing vessels stuck off the northeast coast and southern Labrador. Local fishermen say the ice conditions are the worst they've seen in more than 20 years.....

.....The first ten days of April 2007 are the coldest in 113 years.....

.....Through Monday April 9, 2007 in Painesdale, MI the five day snow total is now up to 64.5".....

.....On Easter Sunday morning April 8, 2007 frozen precipitation in the form of ice pellets (sleet) fell in the north Florida town of Mary Esther. Tentatively this is a new record for the latest observance of frozen precipitation in the state. Subfreezing minimum temperatures also visited the state of Florida. The cold spot was 28 degrees at Eddy Tower RAWS. Minimum temperatures in the mid 30's dipped as far south as the inland rural south peninsula region, with 36 degrees at Miles City RAWS. The minimum temperatures were some 20-30 degrees below normal. The last time that the sunshine state saw similar April abnormally cold temperature was in 1971 and also 1950.....

.....Beginning on Sunday April 1, 2007 an unusually late season cold wave engulfed the eastern 2/3's of the U.S. Record breaking low minimum temperatures and record high snow fall totals have occurred with this outbreak. On Saturday morning April 7, 2007 snow began falling in north and NE Texas extending eastward into northern Louisiana. The snow could reach the Gulf Coast from New Orleans, LA to Mobile, AL to Pensacola, FL. In Florida subfreezing temperatures are possible on early Easter Sunday morning April 8, 2007 as far south as the inland rural west and middle central peninsula, down to S.R. 52 and west of U.S. 17. A pocket of subfreezing temperatures is also possible across the inland rural south central peninsula. Special weather statement from NWS Tampa Bay, Ruskin, FL. http://kamala.cod.edu/fl/latest.nous42.KTBW.html .....

.....On Monday March 12, 2007 a North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to harmful man induced global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday March 10th called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment. The brutal temperature that they experienced quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said. They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming, DOH.....
.....The minimum temperature on Mt. Mansfield, VT on March 6, 2007 was -28 deg. F, breaking the old record of -25 deg. F set in 1955. On March 7, 2007 numerous minimum temperature records fell across Vermont at lower elevations. Missisquoi River at an elevation of 410 feet saw a minimum temperature of -37 deg. F. Island Pond at an elevation of 1201 feet saw a minimum temperature of -35 deg. F.....

.....The minimum temperature on Mt. Washington, NH on March 7, 2007 was -30 deg. F, breaking the old record of -21 deg. F set in 1937.....

.....The minimum temperature on Mt. Washington, NH on March 6, 2007 was -37 deg. F, breaking the old record of -23 deg. F set in 1950. The -37 deg. F reading fell short by one degree of the all time coldest March temperature of -38 deg. F set in 1950.....

.....In Toronto, Ontario, Canada February 2007 was the coldest since February 1912.....

.....In Boston, MA the minimum temperature dropped to 6 degrees on March 6, 2007, the coldest March minimum temperature since March 10, 1984.....

.....Over the past few day's New England has been suffering through an unusually cold late season Arctic airmass. For Massachusetts March 6, 2007 was the coldest March 6th since 1950.....

.....On June 1, 2005 measurable snow fell for the first time in recorded history in tropical Somalia. It fell at an elevation of 1000 feet at Puntland in the NE part of the country. Ironically the freak snowstorm was blamed on man induced global warming....

.....Per the BBC, during the week of February 12, 2007 snow fell in Nepal's capital, Katmandu for the first time since 1944, 63 years.....

.....During the week of February 19, 2007 snow fell in portions of Argentina that have never seen snow so early in the season (late summer). A comparison would be snow in Philadelphia, PA on August 19th.....

.....On February 17, 2007 a minimum temperature of 18.6 deg. F was observed at Holder in Citrus County (the west central peninsula) of Florida. This temperature was the coldest ever observed so late in the winter season.....
.....On February 15, 2007 it snowed in Pensacola Florida. This is the fourth time this winter season that frozen precipitation has fallen in Florida.....

.....On January 15, 2007 Lancaster, CA broke their monthly record, coming within one degree of their all-time record low temperature. LANCASTER TEMPERATURE OF 03 DEGREES TODAY SET A NEW MONTHLY RECORD FOR JANUARY. THE COLDEST ALL TIME RECORD FOR LANCASTER WAS 02 DEGREES SET DECEMBER 24 1984.....

.....Snow showers fell across portions of the central peninsula of Florida east of U.S. 41 and north of S.R. 50 during the Tuesday evening-Wednesday morning period November 21-22, 2006, including the Orlando metro area. The snow showers were the earliest ever observed on the central peninsula and state and reported since European settlers arrived. On the morning of November 22, 2006 Archbold which is located on the south central peninsula region observed a minimum temperature of 28 deg.....

.....It snowed in downtown Los Angeles for the first time in modern times on Saturday February 18, 2006.....

.....During the first two weeks of February 2006 all of Alaska with the exception of the panhandle region was in the grip of extreme below zero temperature. Inland area temperatures repeatedly dropped into the -50 to -65 deg. F below zero range.....

.....During the first week of December 2005 the coldest minimum temperatures ever observed so early in the season chilled the lower 48 states, with the exception of the Florida Peninsula. Below zero daytime readings dipped deep into Colorado and Kansas, with night time sub zero readings into west Texas. Frozen precipitation fell at Corpus Christi and Brownsville, TX and into northern Mexico S-SW of Brownsville and Del Rio. Some north and central Plains region areas saw minimum temperatures in the -20 to -30 deg. below zero range.....

.....November 2005 was the coldest in the last 30 years in the northern Great Plains, Mid West and Great Lakes regions.....

....During Southern Hemisphere Winter 2005 Russia's Vostok base on the ice cap of East Antarctica set the new all time coldest minimum temperature on Earth of -132 deg. below zero. The previous record was -129 deg below zero......

.....Tuesday was even colder than usual at Russia's Vostok base on the ice cap of East Antarctica. The high of -101 degrees was fully 25 degrees below average for early May. The low was -104 degrees, or about 15 degrees below average.....

.....Monday April 25, 2005 a 31.9 deg. minimum temperature is observed in central Florida. Two other locations observed 32 deg. I've been keeping track of temperature in Florida since 1965 and this is the latest 32 deg. minimum temperature during that time period.....

.....Sunday-Monday April 24-25, 2005. A record breaking late season snowfall has occurred in parts of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Snowfall totals of up to 12-24" have been measured.

.....Sunday April 17, 2005 a 31.8 deg. minimum temperature is observed in central Florida.....

.....Greater Havana, Cuba, dawned rather chilly Monday morning April 4, 2005. At the Jose Marti international airport south of the city's center, the temperature dipped to 50 degrees whereas the average daily low during April is 70. A minimum temperature of 31.6 deg. was also observed in central Florida.....

.....Late season chill has descended on southeast Europe. At the same time, moisture streaming in from the Mediterranean has produced snow over parts of Turkey. The mountainous terrain over central Turkey has had a few inches of snow. Even in the capital city, Ankara, the snow managed to accumulate as temperatures were just below freezing and the snow was briefly heavy.....

.....The snowfall at Cleveland Hopkins airport for the day is 6.4 inches. This brings the snowfall total for the 2004-2005 season to 105.3 inches, which breaks the all time record for the snowiest season at Cleveland Hopkins airport, which was 101.1 inches in 1995-1996.....

.....The coldest March night on record occurred across the Netherlands this past Thursday night. Sub-zero readings were
recorded across the country. Marknesse fell to an overnight low of -5F. Such cold weather capped a week of heavy snows which buried some parts of the country under 20 inches. This winter has been the snowiest in the past 50 years for the Netherlands.....

.....Snow-covered palm trees in the Mediterranean, travel chaos on the continent and a rise in heating costs are the results of an unusual European cold snap.....

.....In some parts of The Netherlands snowfall was up to 20 inches, the highest levels recorded for March in the past 20 to 25 years, the Dutch meteorological institute said.....

.....Italy's port city of Genoa was paralyzed by a blanket of rare late winter white stuff that caused traffic chaos as far away as Milan, in one of the coldest starts to March on record, meteorologists said. Authorities closed Genoa airport, shut city schools and ordered buses off the roads as a blizzard blanketed the Liguria coastline. Milan also got a rare covering of snow during the morning, as did the nearby cities of Turin and Parma. In Turin, the thermometer fell to a record 17 Fahrenheit overnight, while Rome suffered its coldest March for 18 years.....

.....Heavy snowfall and below-freezing temperatures across most of northern and central Greece this week have cut off dozens of mountain villages, blocked roads and led authorities to close some schools.....

.....In Spain, renowned for its warm winter sunshine in parts, palm trees in the Mediterranean city of Barcelona have been topped with snow and Madrid has seen its heaviest snowfall for about 15 years.....

.....One of the worst winters in decades continues to bring heavy snows and cold air to Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Pakistan, over 300 people have died from the series of heavy snowfalls in the past few weeks. The heavy snows have stranded over hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir.....

.....Monday dawned with bitter cold in much of central Quebec, Canada. At Lac Benoit, for example, the early morning low was -48 degrees. Near Manouane, -46 degrees was registered early Monday, and the -43 degrees registered at Bonnard was a full 30 degrees below average.....

.....Heavy snowfall in Indian-controlled Kashmir has claimed more than 100 lives, and dozens were still missing Monday, the BBC reported. The snow created avalanches over villages south of Srinagar, destroying homes and killing about 70 people. Indian soldiers and medical personnel were searching for survivors Monday in the region, where 15 feet of snow has fallen since Friday.....

.....Snow this week has once again whitened northernmost Africa. In Algeria, the city of Constantine lay under seven inches of snow early Wednesday. A few weeks ago the same region was hit with 24-26" of the white stuff.....

.....In far northern Norway, the town of Kautokeino set consecutive lows of -27 and -26 degrees Monday and Tuesday. These were followed by afternoon highs of -12 and -10 degrees. In February, an average day here would have a low of 0 and a high of 13 degrees, so the weather has been considerably colder than usual.....

.....An impressive cold wave persisted over much of the Balkan Peninsula Friday. Night-times this week have been especially frigid over the region owing to clear skies, light winds and, in many places, a thick snow cover. In Serbia, Sjenica registered consecutive lows of -17, -21, -21, -19 and -20 degrees F. Monday through Friday whereas February's mean daily low is 23. Bitola, Macedonia, dipped 11 to 14 degrees below zero each of these five mornings.....

.....Cold rains and mountain snows fell early this week along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The latest bout of wet weather boosted rainfall at Beirut, Lebanon, to about six inches since the start of the month. Snow fell low enough to blanket ground down to at least 1000 feet, thereby whitening the hills from Lebanon south into Israel and the West Bank, and also to Amman, Jordan.....

.....Northwestern Canada's Yukon Territory has been much colder than usual so far this February. The first six days of the month in Dawson, for example, registered a minus-40-degree average temperature with this mark 28 degrees below the mean. Tuesday to Wednesday were even colder than usual in northwestern Canada's Yukon Territory. Wednesday, the temperature dipped to -55 degrees in Old Crow and -52 degrees in Dawson; these marks were 25-30 degrees below average for early February. Earlier in the season the same region was struck with -60 to -65 deg. below zero F temperatures.....

.....The weather has waxed wild over southeastern Australia early this week. It began hot (it is mid summer, after all), but cooled
dramatically following a strong cold front Tuesday into Wednesday. Take Melbourne, where Tuesday saw 99 degrees early in the afternoon. Thereafter, rainy southerly winds ushered in a chill that held temperatures between 45 and 50 degrees right through the day Wednesday. Rainfall was 2.9 inches as of Wednesday evening. The shift in temperature was even more striking inland: Griffith, New South Wales, reached a blistering 107 degrees Tuesday yet, at the same time Wednesday, the temperature was only in the lower 50s! Melbourne is on the same latitude as Washington, DC. This is a tremendous cold anomaly.....

.....Over eastern Argentina and southwestern Uruguay, a late-week blast of mid-summer heat clashing with a strong cold front sparked widespread torrential rains powered by thunderstorms. Two-day rainfall was 6.4 inches at Dolores, Argentina, and at least 6.3 inches at Carrasco, near Montevideo, Uruguay. Rainfall was 3-5 inches over greater Buenos Aires, Argentina, where Monday morning was chilly and windswept 55 degrees with 45-mph gusts. Elsewhere in Argentina, rains behind the strong cold front made Sundays an unusually cool afternoon at Neuquen: the high was 59 degrees versus an average high of 89.....

.....The 4-12" of snow that fell in Corpus Christi and Victoria, TX a few days ago occurred on the same latitude as the Tampa Bay area. Snow and sleet eventually also fell all across the Gulf Coast to north Florida.....

[JR-]

also i believe that current reasearch shows that this warming is at such a rate that does not generally occur naturally and definately is not set to occur at a rate which is slow enough for earths animals and plants to adapt to via evoloution, of course climate change is not nessesarly wrong as such but we will most likely see a dramatic reduction in biodiversity as life adjusts, and a good deal of human lives could be at risk
actually, it was becoming increasingly accepted by the geology community that catastrophic (by which they mean rapid and severe) climate change was common in geological history, quite a reserve from the previous accepted wisdom that all climate change was gradual.
this change was taking place around the year 2000 when i was studying geology.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Phew it's so hot in here I can't write an answer at the moment. I'll be back and reply the replies to my posts later, unless it gets even hotter here.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

actually, it was becoming increasingly accepted by the geology community that catastrophic (by which they mean rapid and severe) climate change was common in geological history, quite a reserve from the previous accepted wisdom that all climate change was gradual.
this change was taking place around the year 2000 when i was studying geology.
thats interesting although just because climate change is common (and even if this one is natural) it would still be damaging to current biodiversity and so a problem

i would also point out that just because its called global warming doesnt mean that the whole world will get hotter i suppose climate change is a better term for it. There could be localised coolings (especially if the gulf stream fails)

I would also point out that despite recordings such as those Gawain found the vast magority of peer review papers are suggesting climate change (to varying degrees), there is nothing i would like more then to hear that all the carbon dioxide we have produced will have little effect, but i believe that the climatologists can do a better job of analizing data such as that highlighted then me and if they are still (in the vast magority) saying global warming is a reality then im gonna believe them.

Incedentally the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects the conclusions of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, those conclusions being that:

"most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"

now that may not be a definate but its the most likely anser

[Don Corleone]

"most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"


Interesting. Isn't this that report where they wrote the conclusion 1 year before the report? But by all means, I'd like to review the report for myself. Do you have a link?

[drone]

In a couple of years, some volcano is going to blow it's top, spew tons of ash into the atmosphere, and cool down the planet by a degree for a year or so. This event will or will not solve global warming, but it will screw up everyone's data and agendas. :yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct. You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move. We cant put a thermostat on the earth. It will always fluctuate . Always has always will. Look at it this way. Enjoy the summer while you can because thats all this is in the greater scheme of things. Winter will return someday and they will be longing for such a wonderful and warm climate as we enjoy today.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Interesting. Isn't this that report where they wrote the conclusion 1 year before the report? But by all means, I'd like to review the report for myself. Do you have a link?
yeah sure

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

the qoute is from page 10

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct. You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move. We cant put a thermostat on the earth. It will always fluctuate . Always has always will. Look at it this way. Enjoy the summer while you can because thats all this is in the greater scheme of things. Winter will return someday and they will be longing for such a wonderful and warm climate as we enjoy today.
only the most alarmist are saying that the whole human species will be wiped out, its very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuates

this isnt like you have a greenhouse thats just getting a bit warmer yeah sure some plants might like warmer conditions if they are adapted for them but other plants would prefer it was colder or wetter, the fact is that most plants have themselves sorted perfectly for the condidtons they are in, so any fluctuation they are not adapted for is likely to be harmful, no-one is talking about stopping natural paterns but reducing our Co2 emmissions isnt stopping natural patterns the accepted theory (the gaia hypothosis) is that earths temperature is kept relatively stable normally and so does not fluctuate like it is now, naturally

a bit of info on the gaia hypothosis
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_jim.html

[Gawain of Orkeny]

ts very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuates

Very unlikely is being generous. Its highly doubtful in my book.

Listen ask and botanist and they will tell you the earth is producing more food now than at any time in history. Much of this is because of global warming. Again enjoy summer while it lasts because winter shall return with a vengance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

One funny thing: you know how windows task bar sometimes cuts off half the title of a window? Well in my setup, the text for this window says "global war...". I think that's quite fitting. Did you know that American and EU defense expert analysts both agree that global warming is the most dangerous threat to society in the future, ranked far ahead of terrorism, communism, fascism or anything else?

[Rodion Romanovich]

No picture there.

Heres some examples of recent global warming. laugh.gif
Are you, with this cut and paste job from some right wing extremist page, trying to say that global warming is incorrect because you've found 100 places and times where temperature has been lower than average? If so, you've misunderstood global warming. The theory doesn't claim temperature increase everywhere, but an average temperature increase over the world. 100 places and times with lower temperature doesn't outweigh 1,000,000 places and times where temperatures are increasing. Here's a beginner's tutorial to calculating average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

[Xiahou]

(especially if the gulf stream fails)That's a myth. The gulf stream is only a minor contributor to Europe's warm climate. You can read about it here (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/) or in any other number of places.


Are you, with this cut and paste job from some right wing extremist page, trying to say that global warming is incorrect because you've found 100 places and times where temperature has been lower than average? If so, you've misunderstood global warming. The theory doesn't claim temperature increase everywhere, but an average temperature increase over the world. 100 places and times with lower temperature doesn't outweigh 1,000,000 places and times where temperatures are increasing. Here's a beginner's tutorial to calculating average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AverageAh-ha!:laugh4:
And did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? What is the global average temperature, really? And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?

[Rodion Romanovich]

So, you dispute the idea of Global Dimming or why do you think I've not understood?
No, I'm not disputing global dimming. I'm pointing out the importance of the fact that incoming light has different wavelengths from the outgoing light. We need to stop emission of particles that slow down long wavelengths (outgoing light), and prevent atmosphere decrease in particles that stop short wavelengths (incoming light). For instance we need the ozone layer to reflect some UV light and lower the energy in the light that passes through, but we don't need heavy dosage of CH4, SF6, CO2 and similar that pushes the temperature equilibrium towards higher temperatures.

Many people who don't understand the concept of atmospheric scattering and excitation of particles in the atmosphere incorrectly believe that the outgoing light has the same wavelength as the incoming light. If that had been the case, naturally global dimming would compensate global warming. Such is however not the case.

Which of these parts is it you disagree with/don't understand?
1. incoming and outgoing light have different wavelengths
2. different particles have different abilities at reflecting different wavelengths of light
3. other, please specify

[Rodion Romanovich]

And did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? [...] And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."

Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct.
Human population growth is related to cultural attitudes, and short term fluctuations in resource availability. As scientists have predicted, the short term effect of global warming is increased crop yields, followed by extreme decline in the long term. We're increasing the population significantly at a time when we're passing the turning point in crop yields.



You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move.
We currently have a 20 times faster climate change than ever before in the history of earth. Man hardly managed to adapt itself to the ice age, even though it came over a period of 300 years. Today, we have a climate change about 20 times faster, and the rate of change also seems to be increasing. It's not a matter of "next generations" any more, it's a matter of your life when you're older.

Maybe you've heard of the problems the third world has with getting clean water? Such problems are now spreading to the temperate regions of earth as well. Maybe within 5 years you will hear some regions in the USA having to transport waters from neighboring areas because their water becomes poisonous, algae-infested, or other euthrophication problems disrupt water supply. In 10-15 years, this may be a problem for entire states in the USA.

[Xiahou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."

Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.
I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years.

I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.


The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?:laugh4:
As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years.

This shows you don't hold these scientists in high regard. There are measurement in which current ice core data is compared with old ice core data. There are other measurements using paleontological data. There are other measurements using different methods. All combinations are used, compared and evalutated. This is unlike pollution supporters, who keep quoting only single, unconfirmed and unchecked sources. :laugh4:



I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.

This may be valid for some previous scenarios, but the current CO2 increase is caused by pollution.



What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?

We can do everything we do today without polluting, yet you insist on keeping the pollution. I don't think global warming denier is an adequate title for someone who insists on keeping the very pollution. :laugh4:



As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.
No, you must argue why it's harmless to continue a pollution which is known to be causing global warming, when we can do everything we do with pollution without it if we just impose laws for it now. The only damage it can do is to increase expenses for some industries by some percent, whereas continued pollution, according to all sources except a small minority (which are so few that they might be considered within the measurement error margin), is likely to cause massive death through direct effects such as impaired supply situation, as well as through indirect effects, by making the resource competition more intense, and increasing political tensions all over the world.

[Slyspy]

Global warming is, on balance, happening. It may or may not be influenced by mankind.

Thats about it.

The only real argument is that since we can't tell whether we are influencing it should we (a) stick our heads in the sand and take whatever happens as it comes or (b) take expensive action to limit our impact, a course which may well be futile anyway.

[JR-]

We currently have a 20 times faster climate change than ever before in the history of earth. Man hardly managed to adapt itself to the ice age, even though it came over a period of 300 years. Today, we have a climate change about 20 times faster, and the rate of change also seems to be increasing. It's not a matter of "next generations" any more, it's a matter of your life when you're older.


rubbish.

geological history is littered with catastrophic climate change.

"20 times faster climate change than ever before"

like to tell that to the people who witnessed:

Toba -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba
3-3.5 degree temperature drop (C)

Mount Tambora -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora
0.5 degrees C drop (the year with no summer) (C)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Kumae -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwae
0.5 degree temperature drop (C)

Huaynaputina -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina
0.8 degrees temperature drop (C)

Krakatoa -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatau
0.5 degree temperature drop (C)

Mount Katmai -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Katmai
0.4 degree temperature drop (C)

Pinatubo -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo
0.5 degree temerpature drop (C)

Deccan Traps -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Potential cause of the KT extinction

Siberian Traps -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps
Potential cause of the PT extinction

somehow i think things have been plenty worse in times past, quite with mankind's intervention.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is unlike pollution supporters

One more time there are no pollution supporters.


This may be valid for some previous scenarios, but the current CO2 increase is caused by pollution.

What pollution are you speaking of exactly? And that is not a fact now is it?


We can do everything we do today without polluting,

For heavens sake if we go by with what SCOTUS and you guys are now calling pollution even breathing causes pollution. So the solution is that we all stop.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The earth goes through natural changes, but I do think human activity has had a very negative impact on the atmosphere.

Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.

Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.

I do believe it was written by the scientists. Why do you say otherwise? Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?

Ive seen it and its a fact. I mean f your talking about the IPPC report.

Heres just one link


IPPC: Fraud

The recent IPPC report on climate change is a fraud. The recent report was just a "Summary for Policymakers" document, written by politicians for politicians. The real science will follow shortly - some 3 months after the summary document. This is not using sound methodology, as one should not publish conclusions before their justification. Nonetheless, this in itself is not fraud. However, it is when combined with the scientific report guidlines:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

Source (Page 4)

In other words, the politicians have made their assertions independent of the evidence, and will doct the scientific case to suit their own means. For those interested, the draft report has been published (without permission) here, so that it can be compared to the edited version due to be published soon.

As a research scientist, I find this behaviour abhorant. Only way to stop such fraud is to raise awareness - only then might the IPPC be forced into changing its policy of doctoring science for its own political agenda.


LINK (http://www.dailypropaganda.co.uk/2007/02/)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Thank you. I still believe CFC's are harmful to our atmosphere and it is a fact we're letting off plenty into the air.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What have Chlorofluorocarbons got to do with global warming. Thats the ozone scare thing. They already banned those. Cost us a few astronaut's.

[Rodion Romanovich]

geological history is littered with catastrophic climate change.

You seem to forget that your examples are merely temporary discontinuities, lasting for one or two years, then things return to normal again.

Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.

[Rodion Romanovich]

One more time there are no pollution supporters.

Then why do you keep supporting continued excessive pollution if we can, at a very low cost, reduce pollution significantly?

[R'as al Ghul]

3. other, please specify

Legio, I'm puzzled as to where we disagree.
I'd be the first to agree that I'm no expert on this topic but I thought I'd understood the basics.
I mentioned "Global Dimming" because part of the general public opinion is that we just need to stop certain emmissions and we're good.
That's not true. One of the effects, if we were to reduce all emmisions to zero, would be that certain aerosols which now reflect a certain amount of light and heat off the earth would be missing. This would result in an increase of temperature on the earth. The effect of Global Dimming today is not that it compensates global warming but it weakens it to a certain amount. (This was measured during the flight ban after 9/11)
At least that's how I understand the idea. Please tell me if this is correct.
Now, assuming that this is correct, one could cynically point out that we only need to pollute the air with the right stuff to counter the global warming. Of course I wouldn't advocate that. I'm not a supporter of pollution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Then why do you keep supporting continued excessive pollution if we can, at a very low cost, reduce pollution significantly?

This is like calling pro choice people pro murderers. Im not in favor f pollution Im in favor of common sense.


Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.

Oh please what BS. Prove it. If you can your smarter than all the scientiists. Neither you nor they have any way of proving it with out a time machine and hanging out for a few million years.


A recent newspaper item was headed 'Hottest since 900 AD' and included the text:

A panel of experts has found that the past few decades were warmer than any comparable period in the past 400 years. And there is evidence that temperatures were higher in the past 25 years than at any other quarter-century since the year 900. The report by the National Academy of Sciences was congressionally mandated after another study showed unprecedented warming in the northern hemisphere towards the end of the 20th century. ( full item reproduced as a PDF ).

Now look at this item again and see the conclusion it leads to. In the year 900, average temperatures over the preceding 25 years were HIGHER than in the 25 years to 2000. There has never been any suggestion that the years 875-900 were a period of accumulation of 'greenhouse gases'. Therefore, there is NO reason to suppose that greenhouse gas accumulation is the reason for the present rise in temperatures during 1975-2000.

No scientific expertise is needed to accept this conclusion, it is a matter of simple logic.

Here is an extract from the final paragraph of Kinninmonth's book:
The evidence advanced by the IPCC, that human activity will cause dangerous interference with the climate system, is illusory ... These assertions ignore a large body of paleoclimatic evidence that that points to climate having changed abruptly and relatively frequently in the past ... The theory of 'greenhouse climate change' is conceptually simple, seemingly plausible, but deficient in its consideration and treatment of complex climatic processes. Importantly, there is no evidence that a reduction in global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will reduce the incidence of dangerous climate extremes, or reduce the human suffering and community loss that accompany them.

LINK (http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/GreenhouseGasFallacyII.htm)

[Rodion Romanovich]

@R'as al Ghul: Ok, now I see what you mean. Yes, I agree to your last post. The main problem with polluting "with the right stuff", is that it's logistically infeasible to make it compensate the greenhouse gas emissions, because the emissions must be high up in the atmosphere, and many of the required gases are quite rare, poisonous if they spread to lower atmopshere levels (ozone, for example), and many of them are also difficult to produce in large amounts. It's also unknown exactly what would happen if we miraculously would find a way to make this logistically feasible. We would get a very particle-filled atmosphere, and poisonous gases would be likely (due to diffusion) to reach the lower atmosphere levels and make the air difficult, if not dangerous, to breathe.

[Rodion Romanovich]

This is like calling pro choice people pro murderers. Im not in favor f pollution Im in favor of common sense.

Common sense? You're not willing to invest less than a percent of state income to prevent what 99% of all scientists believe is the greatest threat to mankind throughout all time? That all defense analysis specialists all over the world - including the USA - think is the greatest threat to global security since the second world war? That is now starting to show itself everyday, confirming the prediction models? That economists all over the world fear will cause the greatest economical crash since the 30ies depression?

Instead, you prefer continued pollution, over almost invisible regulations that will not affect economy more than one percent at most. It looks like you're supporting the pollution itself, than any "common sense".



Oh please what BS. Prove it. If you can your smarter than all the scientiists. Neither you nor they have any way of proving it with out a time machine and hanging out for a few million years.

Prove that you jumping off a cliff will kill you. Unless you jump, how can we ever know?



LINK (http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/GreenhouseGasFallacyII.htm)
Oh yeah, another right wing extremist link... :coffeenews:

[JR-]

You seem to forget that your examples are merely temporary discontinuities, lasting for one or two years, then things return to normal again.

Global warming is a 60 years trend, with temperature increasing on average 20 times faster than anything we've ever seen before in history.
no, global warming (as well as global cooling) is a 4.6 billion year trend which has continuous fluctuation and reversal in temperature trends over the entire period.

[JR-]

This is like calling pro choice people pro murderers.
that is exactly what it is like, the debate has become politicised and it is now considered acceptable to demonise those who question the (anthropogenic) global warming mantra.

being someone who , a) questions the ammount of anthropogenic global warming, and b) questions the correct response to general global warming, is a bit like being a nazi, or a pedophile. the 'cognoscenti' consider you to be unclean and perverted.

[Slyspy]

Of course Gawain's cut-and-paste article does support the theory that recent warming as been rather rapid and extreme.

[Slyspy]

that is exactly what it is like, the debate has become politicised and it is now considered acceptable to demonise those who question the (anthropogenic) global warming mantra.

being someone who , a) questions the ammount of anthropogenic global warming, and b) questions the correct response to general global warming, is a bit like being a nazi, or a pedophile. the 'cognoscenti' consider you to be unclean and perverted.

Yeah, because us proles love Nazis and pedophiles.

Unless your argument is that only stupid people regard them as anything other than "unclean and perverted"?

Edit:

I don't think that cognoscenti means quite what you believe it does.

[JR-]

Common sense? You're not willing to invest less than a percent of state income to prevent what 99% of all scientists believe is the greatest threat to mankind throughout all time?

yes, climate change is global in its effect, and frequently causes extreme changes to the climate-average we currently enjoy, so of course it is the greatest threat to mankind outside of nuclear war and alien invasion.

the question is whether we can change that to any useful degree, and whether the money would not be better spent improving the human condition instead.

a person with access to clean water, a weather resistant house, and in good general health is much better able to survive and thrive in harsh weather than he would otherwise be were he riddled with disease, crippled from malnutrition, and living in a shanty on monsoon flood plains.

05-1.0 percent of GDP for the next 100 years equates of tens of trillions of dollars, how best might that money be spent?

this question is doubly important because the biggest polluters in the next twenty years will be the developing world by a long measure, so it is they who will have to bear the brunt of reduced economic growth to pay for internationally mandated environmental efficiency initiatives.

this as a proposal to india, who believe that rapid economic growth in the last twenty years has dragged 300+ million indians out of grinding poverty. i think they will tell you to get stuffed!

[JR-]

Yeah, because us proles love Nazis and pedophiles.

Unless your argument is that only stupid people regard them as anything other than "unclean and perverted"?

Edit:

I don't think that cognoscenti means quite what you believe it does.
what?

[Rodion Romanovich]

yes, climate change is global in its effect, and frequently causes extreme changes to the climate-average we currently enjoy, so of course it is the greatest threat to mankind outside of nuclear war and alien invasion.

the question is whether we can change that to any useful degree, and whether the money would not be better spent improving the human condition instead.

a person with access to clean water, a weather resistant house, and in good general health is much better able to survive and thrive in harsh weather than he would otherwise be were he riddled with disease, crippled from malnutrition, and living in a shanty on monsoon flood plains.

05-1.0 percent of GDP for the next 100 years equates of tens of trillions of dollars, how best might that money be spent?

this question is doubly important because the biggest polluters in the next twenty years will be the developing world by a long measure, so it is they who will have to bear the brunt of reduced economic growth to pay for internationally mandated environmental efficiency initiatives.

this as a proposal to india, who believe that rapid economic growth in the last twenty years has dragged 300+ million indians out of grinding poverty. i think they will tell you to get stuffed!
So you're saying that those poor Indians should solve the pollution problem while the rich countries continue polluting more than any others? I think they'll tell you to **** ***. The money would be better spent on preventing global warming and world war, than on weapons to kill those poor Indians who want to enjoy clean water and food for the day, or for potential war between equally strong parts within the western world.

[Rodion Romanovich]

that is exactly what it is like, the debate has become politicised and it is now considered acceptable to demonise those who question the (anthropogenic) global warming mantra.

being someone who , a) questions the ammount of anthropogenic global warming, and b) questions the correct response to general global warming, is a bit like being a nazi, or a pedophile. the 'cognoscenti' consider you to be unclean and perverted.
Yes, I consider pollution supporters to be dirty (pun intended) :laugh4:

[JR-]

So you're saying that those poor Indians should solve the pollution problem while the rich countries continue polluting more than any others? I think they'll tell you to **** ***. The money would be better spent on preventing global warming and world war, than on weapons to kill those poor Indians who want to enjoy clean water and food for the day, or for potential war between equally strong parts within the western world.

no, i'm saying that we western governments should continue to provide incentive that encourage efficient production and consumption, just as we do now, and that we should make this technology commercially available to the developing world in order that they can skip the dirty industrial revolution brought about by the west.

clean production is efficient production, and efficient production is cheap production. the market will do fine with the proper legislative framework.

i never said that poor indians should solve the problem while rich westerners lie back, that is your words. tell me how you intend to reduce pollution in the near future if you do not intend to involve the (rapidly) developing world?

at what point did i suggest we spend money buying weapons so we can kill indians? THIS IS A CRETINOUS WAY TO CONDUCT A DEBATE!
i said the money would probably be better spent on improving the human condition, i.e. sanitation, health and shelter.

[Ser Clegane]

Please keep this discussion civil, folks.

Over the last batch of posts there has been too much of hyperbole and playing the man instead of the ball for my taste.

Thanks

Ser Clegane

[Rodion Romanovich]

clean production is efficient production, and efficient production is cheap production. the market will do fine with the proper legislative framework.

Unfortunately it costs some percent more to do it cleanly than doing it in a dirty way. In an unregulated market, dirty alternatives win. That's why regulation is necessary. In the long run, it will pay back economically.



i never said that poor indians should solve the problem while rich westerners lie back, that is your words. tell me how you intend to reduce pollution in the near future if you do not intend to involve the (rapidly) developing world?

at what point did i suggest we spend money buying weapons so we can kill indians? THIS IS A CRETINOUS WAY TO CONDUCT A DEBATE!
i said the money would probably be better spent on improving the human condition, i.e. sanitation, health and shelter.
Basic supply of water and food will be much more expensive and difficult to solve when global warming continues even further. It will cost far more - orders of magnitude more - than it costs to reduce emissions at this point. And when political instability results in massive wars, don't you think the expenses for weaponry will be a lot higher than 1% of BNP? In fact, the USA is spending $518,100,000,000 on military expenses at the moment, only to keep a mini-war in Iraq going.

[JR-]

please note:

the market will do fine with the proper legislative framework.

please tell me how you reached the conclusion that provided filtered wells in villages, access to vaccines and medical assistance, and flat pack houses, is going to cost more than the pre-calculated cost of kyoto style agreements which is 0.5-1.0 percent of global GDP per year for the next 100 years?

[Don Corleone]

Well said, Furunculus. Don't let the ad hominem attacks deter you, there's plenty of people that agree that a coherent strategy, one that examines multiple approaches and the possible blending of them, is the wisest path.

For some reason, there's a certain crowd in this debate that seems to think Global Warming = heavy taxes on US and other Western countries.

In truth, if we're interested in reducing anthrogenic climatic affects, a reasonable goal, we need to examine approaches that have worked well in the past for deterrance and avoidance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

please nore:


please tell me how you reached the conclusion that provided filtered wells in villages, access to vaccines and medical assistance, and flat pack houses, is going to cost more than the pre-calculated cost of kyoto style agreements which is 0.5-1.0 percent of global GDP per year for the next 100 years?
The problem is, as temperatures increase, the costs for water, houses, and ability to produce food in these regions will be worsened significantly. You forget that global warming will increase the costs for basic supplies. Wells may dry, and water may have to be transported to some regions, or people will have to move, rendering many houses useless and more have to be built. Transports, emitting even more greenhouse gases, will have to transport supplies between regions. Add that some of the problems aren't possible to solve at all once temperatures get high enough, for instance poisonous algae poisoning the water. Some destruction of water quality can be fixed by expensive filtering systems, but they cost energy (which causes more global warming) to keep going. Also add the costs of war due to global resource problems, and massive immigration orders of magnitude greater than before. The economy will certainly suffer from global warming, and what's worse is that the political and environmental effects of global warming are even worse than the economical problems it would cause. The western world will soon have water of the same quality they have in the third world if this continues - in fact some European and American cities already today have so low quality tap water that it can't be drunk.

More interestingly, we aren't capable of providing the third world with these things you list today, so how would you be able to do so when the situation worsens and it gets even more difficult to do so?

Finally, let me ask you this: if in 15-30 years, the global warming has gone far and caused chaos all over the world, what would you say to the 6 billion people that supported reduction of emissions and saving of the planet from destruction? When there's not enough resources to supply us all, so that some of us will have to die, will you willingly be the one to commit suicide to give room for the others, those who didn't want to follow the path to destruction you advocated, and are thus partly responsible for?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well said, Furunculus. Don't let the ad hominem attacks deter you, there's plenty of people that agree that a coherent strategy, one that examines multiple approaches and the possible blending of them, is the wisest path.

For some reason, there's a certain crowd in this debate that seems to think Global Warming = heavy taxes on US and other Western countries.

In truth, if we're interested in reducing anthrogenic climatic affects, a reasonable goal, we need to examine approaches that have worked well in the past for deterrance and avoidance.
Does that "coherent strategy" include a plan for handling immigration of around 100 million persons to America and Europe? A wave of which most will probably come over a period of less than a decade.

Also, where would you put the limit for what degree of global warming is acceptable? 3-6 degrees is the current prediction if increase of pollution stops and pollution is kept constant. Would you support 10 degrees increase? 20? 50? Surely you must realize that there has to be some kind of limit, and that it is eventually necessary to reduce emissions?

[JR-]

the figures quoted for the cost of Kyoto are 150-350 billion USD per year.

after kyoto, there would have to follow successive similar programs throughout the course of the century which would presumably cost a similar amount.

lets take an average figure of $250 billion/year, bearing in mind that:
on the one hand, the ICCF believe that it could cost the EU 10-15 times what the EU estimated it would cost -
http://www.iccfglobal.org/research/climate/cop-10dec2004.html
whereas on the other, some people that it would cost only one fifth as much of GDP growth as previously estimated -
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2002/10/15.php

so, $250 billion/year over one hundred years drags back a total cost of $25 trillion by the early 22nd century. and all of this to stop the earth reaching a given temperature 6-10 years before it would have otherwise got there had there been no kyoto.

i reckon we could do a lot to improve the human condition with $25 trillion........

[Rodion Romanovich]

the figures quoted for the cost of Kyoto are 150-350 billion USD per year.

after kyoto, there would have to follow successive similar programs throughout the course of the century which would presumably cost a similar amount.

lets take an average figure of $250 billion/year, bearing in mind that:
on the one hand, the ICCF believe that it could cost the EU 10-15 times what the EU estimated it would cost -
http://www.iccfglobal.org/research/climate/cop-10dec2004.html
whereas on the other, some people that it would cost only one fifth as much of GDP growth as previously estimated -
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2002/10/15.php

so, $250 billion/year over one hundred years drags back a total cost of $25 trillion by the early 22nd century. and all of this to stop the earth reaching a given temperature 6-10 years before it would have otherwise got there had there been no kyoto.

i reckon we could do a lot to improve the human condition with $25 trillion........
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not advocating Kyoto. All we need are laws for maximum allowed pollution, and a long prison sentence for those criminals who pollute more than the allowed limit. It costs nothing of the state income, and wouldn't cost the industry more than at most 1% increased expenses. In return, the industry would become competitive internationally because it produces more environmental-friendly, something which will have greater demand in the future. Additionally, these regulation must be agreed upon on an international basis because it isn't short term beneficial for the industries to switch to more environmental friendly alternatives always. Such a deal would make sure the pollution supporting countries don't get benefits over those who are defenders of freedom and justice.

[Don Corleone]

Does that "coherent strategy" include a plan for handling immigration of around 100 million persons to America and Europe? A wave of which most will probably come over a period of less than a decade.

Also, where would you put the limit for what degree of global warming is acceptable? 3-6 degrees is the current prediction if increase of pollution stops and pollution is kept constant. Would you support 10 degrees increase? 20? 50? Surely you must realize that there has to be some kind of limit, and that it is eventually necessary to reduce emissions?

Again with putting words in people's mouths. Where did I say any of this? I simply said we examine socio-economic behavior trends to determine what would be the best mechanism for limiting greenhouse gas emission. Traditionally, imposing arbitrary limits of dubious scientific merit has been shown to be a poor mechnism. Introducing rewards and discouragement for adopting/shunning behavior deemed desirous tends to work better.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Again with putting words in people's mouths. Where did I say any of this? I simply said we examine socio-economic behavior trends to determine what would be the best mechanism for limiting greenhouse gas emission. Traditionally, imposing arbitrary limits of dubious scientific merit has been shown to be a poor mechnism. Introducing rewards and discouragement for adopting/shunning behavior deemed desirous tends to work better.
You didn't answer my question. What is your maximum tolerable temperature increase before you consider legal regulations to be necessaray? Also, does this have to be a temperature increase that has happened, or one which is predicted by models supported by a clear majority of the research community? In short, what would first have to happen before you would support regulations?

[JR-]

wow, that sounds just like what i have been saying all along:



Of course we should continue to enact environmental legislation that prevents us poisoning the land we live on, and yes we should encourage clean industry because efficiency is something to be desired from an economic standpoint as well as an environmental one, but most of all we should promote efficient consumption that reduces the necessary level of production.

This is of course a greatly simplified view, i too would like to see broadly stable global climate (after all, not having to adapt to a new reality is nice and easy)

no, i'm saying that we western governments should continue to provide incentive that encourage efficient production and consumption, just as we do now, and that we should make this technology commercially available to the developing world in order that they can skip the dirty industrial revolution brought about by the west.

the market will do fine with the proper legislative framework.


please note:

the market will do fine with the proper legislative framework.

nice to see we are singing from the same hymn-sheet then.

but it's worth noting that this is happening, all over the world, already, and while it isn't there yet the process is ongoing and heading in the right direction.

[Don Corleone]

You didn't answer my question. What is your maximum tolerable temperature increase before you consider legal regulations to be necessaray? Also, does this have to be a temperature increase that has happened, or one which is predicted by models supported by a clear majority of the research community? In short, what would first have to happen before you would support regulations?

You're right, I didn't. I didn't see it as a valid question, but more of an effort to force a straw-man on me. You seem to take it as faith that you're 100% correct and we're all just being obstinate. This is manifesting itself in disrespect towards those who disagree with you. When I see a reasonable question put forward by you, I will answer it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

wow, that sounds just like what i have been saying all along
Yes, that's good. I think the main difference in my idea is that I would also like to emphasize that most major nations must cooperate and sign international treaties about minimum requirements on a per industry basis, in order to avoid having some nations abusing the situation to change legislations back and forth strategically to outcompete the markets of some of the countries (all signing countries should of course be free to impose stricter requirements than this minimum). Also on the international level there must be incentive to do the right thing, and punishment for doing the wrong thing. At least we agree on the main point, and that is good.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You're right, I didn't. I didn't see it as a valid question, but more of an effort to force a straw-man on me. You seem to take it as faith that you're 100% correct and we're all just being obstinate. This is manifesting itself in disrespect towards those who disagree with you. When I see a reasonable question put forward by you, I will answer it.
I meant the question as a way of finding out what your standpoint is. You seem to be arguing against mine, so of course I'm interested to find out what yours is, partial or fully specified.

[Don Corleone]

I meant the question as a way of finding out what your standpoint is. You seem to be arguing against mine, so of course I'm interested to find out what yours is, partial or fully specified.

I see. It's difficult for me to give arbitrary answers of the ilk: "If the model predicts that global temperature rises by 1.2 degrees in the next 150 years, we must limit American electrical generation to 1.5million megawatts".

Before we take such a measure, I think it's important to see some predictions on just what role C02 emissions play in the temperature rise. Is it 10% responsible for the 1.5 degree rise over the past 100 years? 20%? 50%? This will allow us to have a reasonable relationship of C02 emission to temperature rise.

As for actual trigger points of temperature, I'm humble enough to admit I don't have a qualified opinion on what's acceptable. Rather than trying to use percentages, which is what politicians use, I would recommend we look at global temperatures for as long as we have reasonable data (starting at 1750 is a bit of a throw for one side). We then apply statiscal process control and determine where the mean for this variable lies and where are the six sigma points. I would determine that we would need to hold ourselves to account for any temperatures that exceed this 6sigma range.

Frankly, that was one the most surprising things I found in the IPCC report. It doesn't look at all like it was written by scientists or for scientists. It looks it was written by a government agency. The reason I say that is scientists talk about trend analysis, normalization of data, curve fitting, interpolation of data and so forth. The people who wrote that report had an overriding presumption that a flat line with zero slope was the absolute good. There's no SPC methods employed whatsoever.

In the meantime, I would suggest using tax incentives as a voluntary measure. For each (insert appropriate unit) reduction in a factory/power plant/train system's C02 emission, X dollars of exemption on capital gains taxes will be applied. Companies will always do whatever they can to avoid paying taxes. The trick is getting them to do what you want in order to do that.