No more global warming?

[Furunculus]

Screw graphs, they don't show anything tangible.

However, this does: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...434356,00.html

Global warming *is* happening.

frankly, at the rate in advancement of the understanding of climate science any news article from 2006 is going to get short shrift from me.

[LittleGrizzly]

youre right. i should. they predicted no rain today and whatya know. rain.

Yeah good thinking, also laugh at those fools paying attention to those silly hurricane warnings and other such nonsense. You should calmly stop someone rushing around panicing and tell them that the variables are far too many so it is pointless to prepare...

If you are really unhappy with the accuracy of short term forecasting then you are quite frankly impossible to please, no we cannot predict these things with complete accuracy but to a very high success rate, obviously with longer term the margin for error grows but they do not get these numbers from the lottery or some other random process, the models could be said to be our best possible educated guess...

[LittleGrizzly]

you are obviously no geologist, climate is the archtype of the complex system.

and most of the problems that have been identified thus far with the IPCC are precisely because mechanisms that have previously been not understood were understandably ignored when when using computers to model potential outputs from the known inputs.

that's the problem with the AGW fanbase, too many of them are obviously grade school.

Im assuming you didn't disagree with the we pumps loads of CO2 part... so does CO2 in the atmosphere not help the Earth retain more of the sun's heat ? or is the world not getting warmer ?

Im not saying the Earth temprature rely's solely on CO2 or is some simplistic thing, what I am saying is if the world is getting warmer and CO2 helps make the world warmer and were pumping loads of extra CO2 into the atmosphere... maybe we should try to cut down....

[rvg]

frankly, at the rate in advancement of the understanding of climate science any news article from 2006 is going to get short shrift from me.

short shrift or not, Greenland is rapidly warming up and its ice cap is melting.

[Furunculus]

Im assuming you didn't disagree with the we pumps loads of CO2 part...
so does CO2 in the atmosphere not help the Earth retain more of the sun's heat ?
or is the world not getting warmer ?

Im not saying the Earth temprature rely's solely on CO2 or is some simplistic thing, what I am saying is if the world is getting warmer and CO2 helps make the world warmer and were pumping loads of extra CO2 into the atmosphere... maybe we should try to cut down....

not at all, CO2 has risen as a percentage of atmosphere, and that increase is largely anthropogenic.
yes it is a greenhouse gas.
and yes, the earth did experience a significant warming trend in the second half of the 20th century.

i'm saying that climate science has been too poorly understood for scientists to start asking politicians to spend trillions on lowering CO2 emissions.

if it is anthropogenic, but not principally CO2 induced then we ware wasting money
if it is anthropogenic and CO2 induced, but not catastrophic then we are wasting our money
if it isn't principally anthropogenic, then we are wasting our money
if it isn't principally anthropogenic, but is catastrophic then we are wasting our money
if there is no catastrophic change for whatever reason we are wasting our money

the principle green aim i hold to is maintaining a biosphere that enables and advances the human condition, that includes:
> reducing pollution
> providing clean water
> providing housing
> providing storm protection
> providing electricity and non-poisonous heat sources

the list could include reducing CO2, but it won't until i'm convinced the AGW is both catastrophic (i.e bad for the human race), principally anthopogenic (i.e. we won't buck natural cycles), and principally caused by CO2 (i.e. how much money should we spend on each anthropogenic cause).

[Strike For The South]

I'm not sure who to beilive. But I live 800 miles inland so it doesn't matter.

[Agent Miles]

Global warming is not science, it is a political issue. General Relativity is accepted the world over, and yet it is tested constantly. That is how the scientific method works. Anyone with the same data can get the same result using science. So, I can question Al Einstein, but I can’t question Al Gore?

Global warming is presented as beyond question to hide its many faults. People create the so called science of environmentalism and then when they generate results, it can only be peer reviewed by, you guessed it, other environmentalist people of like mind. Hence, phrases like, “most scientists agree”. If you read the U.N.‘s work on Global Warming, they even officially tiptoe around this problem by calling the work in progress as “vanguard science”. All that is known with certainty is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased over about a century by about 100 parts per million parts (from approximately 287 to 380). There is no proof that these results are the sole reason for any changing of the climate, or that the data from the nineteenth century can even be trusted.

How do environmentalist/leftists get the rest of us to use huge mass transit systems, solar and wind power and “save the world”? Why, by indoctrinating our youth to vote for their agenda and no one else's. That’s the only science Al Gore understands.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not going to get to into the science of it (out of my depth, why I try to avoid global warming topics...) but just to say I don't rule out that the earth is going through a natural warming trend atm and if it is that ins't great but theres not much we can do about it... what we can do however is remove our own acceleration of the process... CO2 undoubtedly has some effect on the atmosphere and considering at the very least we are in a natural warming atm and it takes a while for the effects of the CO2 we have released to fully take effect and with the rest of the world trying to catch our CO2 emitting levels...

Maybe just maybe we should try and cut down on it somewhat... TBH most money towards it is multi beneficial anyway the money doesn't just make us produce less CO2 it reduces pollution and the like...

Agent Miles yes those evil lefties just like they indocrinated the youth into believing we evolved from lower animals and other such nonsense ?

The reason there is a wide consesus is because alot of scientists who specialise in that field agree, make of that what you will but im convinced most scientists would love to trump someones theory with thier own... unfortunately they mostly agree be it some leftist conspiracy or based on scientific research... who knows...

[Agent Miles]

LittleGrizzly, I wasn’t aware that Darwin, who studied to be an Anglican parson and quoted the Bible, would qualify as an “evil leftie”?
The reason for the wide consensus among environmentalists is that they all share the same political goal of creating issues to sway public opinion. Science is the brutal guardian of what we can prove, not what someone agrees on. People who can’t tell you what the climate is going to do in 24 hours are not magically going to be able to tell you what the climate will do in 24 years. What if they are totally wrong? Well, thanks kiddies for voting liberal for a generation. Like your post, environmentalists make an emotional appeal with a “what if” and then add something like, “it’s better to be safe than sorry!” Well it’s not better to waste resources disproving something that can’t even be proven to begin with. Everyone wants efficient cars/homes /industry. That doesn’t mean that my grandchildren should elect a government that wants to destroy our economy so they can pretend to do that.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

That doesn’t mean that my grandchildren should elect a government that wants to destroy our economy so they can pretend to do that.

Exactly.

I'm all for moving in the direction of environmental friendliness. But not in such a way that we ruin ourselves to achieve it.

I'll buy a car that has good gas mileage. I couldn't care less if it emits less gas; I want to save money.

So, in short, I'm not exactly thrilled with hanicapping myself in order to save some trees.

I am not interested in conservation because I feel sorry for "mother earth." I'm interested in conservation because, if I act responsibly, I will be able to use nature longer. It's a purely logical, self-serving notion. If I (and we) don't waste it, we can use it longer. Nothing to do with sympathy for dirt and trees.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.

This sums up people's understanding of the global warming issue from what I've seen in RL. Left-wingers say "omg stupid hillybilly christians can't accept basic facts because they just watch fox news", then right-wingers return "gah brainwashed marxists global warming must be a big-government conspiracy to tax us and fund the new world order".

How many on either side actually know enough to make a serious decision on this issue? It seems to me they can't (which is understandable since the scientists apparently can't either, or is this just one side's conspiracy???), so every left-winger automatically accepts global warming, and everyone on the right denies it (generally speaking).

[Agent Miles]

In case you missed it, I gave you the facts. CO2 went from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts, if the people in the nineteenth century can be trusted. No one has proven that this caused the climate to change. This is not science. Realising this, make your own serious decision.

[drone]

For those too young to remember, we were told that a new ice age was on it's way back in the 70s. This is why some of us are pretty suspicious about the current clamoring of global warming. Newsweek's article about this in 1975. The boy has cried wolf already.

IMO, what we are seeing is the result of tons of data from more accurate modern global weather collection, collected and analyzed to death by people trying to assess and figure out why various isolated natural disasters happen. We don't have accurate/complete readings for a long enough timeframe to properly figure out what is going on, it's all guesswork at this point, combined with whatever political agenda people want to push. And all this work and fuss will mean nothing the next time some random volcano in the Pacific Rim blows it's top and spews enough ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to cool the planet down by a couple of degrees.

Now I'm all for clean air and water. I think we should attempt to live in harmony with nature as much as possible. Are human responsible for climate change? Most likely. Is it as far-reaching as people say? Probably not. What to do about it? Not much. When the planet wants us gone, we will be gone, and it will continue on happily without us (since it already has the plastic ).

[Rhyfelwyr]

In case you missed it, I gave you the facts. CO2 went from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts, if the people in the nineteenth century can be trusted. No one has proven that this caused the climate to change. This is not science. Realising this, make your own serious decision.

I'm sure people from both sides could throw a few facts around, it's getting the bigger picture that matters.

[PBI]

Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.

This sums up people's understanding of the global warming issue from what I've seen in RL. Left-wingers say "omg stupid hillybilly christians can't accept basic facts because they just watch fox news", then right-wingers return "gah brainwashed marxists global warming must be a big-government conspiracy to tax us and fund the new world order".

How many on either side actually know enough to make a serious decision on this issue? It seems to me they can't (which is understandable since the scientists apparently can't either, or is this just one side's conspiracy???), so every left-winger automatically accepts global warming, and everyone on the right denies it (generally speaking).

This is pretty much what bugs me about this issue; that what is a highly technical debate about the finer points of an extremely complex, chaotic system seems to split so neatly along party lines, with both sides claiming the issue is "easy" and the other side is "obviously" wrong.

Either way, the political will is clearly not there to make anything more than cosmetic changes, so I guess we'll have the answer soon enough; and I can see a certain merit in settling the issue once and for all through direct experiment. Personally I feel it would be best if we can move to a more sustainable, low-carbon energy economy in our generation since it needs to be done eventually anyway; I certainly think it would be a better use of time, money and political will than further rearranging of the deckchairs in the Middle-East. However this has more to do with ensuring that the benefits of industrial society will outlast the supply of fossil fuels than with any effect it may have in curbing climate change.

[LittleGrizzly]

Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.

Okay I apologise, my fault. Agent Miles post reminded me of so many conspiracy video's I have watched though....

Yes im sure Darwin was referred as an evil leftie (probably more recently) at the time I think godless Atheist may have been a more popular term... (which is an interchangable 'insult' to some these days)

Ill leave it at this, I generally accept the idea as there is seems to be a consesus amongst those with the relevant scientific education and I don't accept the idea they are lefties trying to trick us into doing what they want by making up science (I don't completely rule out the idea though.... which is why I enjoy watching conspiracy viedos...) EDIT that and most of the inititatives are multi beneficial anyway...

I have got to learn to stay out of the GW topics....

[Aemilius Paulus]

This is pretty much what bugs me about this issue; that what is a highly technical debate about the finer points of an extremely complex, chaotic system seems to split so neatly along party lines, with both sides claiming the issue is "easy" and the other side is "obviously" wrong.

Well, I do think I am done here, as Poor Bloody Infantry summed it up. None of us here are even close to being as much as slightly qualified to say anything about global warming as a general topic. Even the experts on the field are themselves lost. I myself posted a few responses on specific aspects of global warming, but to do anything more than quote singular statistics is beyond all my characteristics.

...Which is why I dislike with passion the categorical and self-sure statement, often imbued with great zeal, debating for either side of global warming.


On a final note, I will add to LittleGrizzly's end statement by pointing out once again that I generally attempt to stay away from all online science-related debates because of the plethora of problems with such endeavours. Mainly, unlike in politics, we are not entitled to an opinion as we are almsot always not qualified to debate science, which is not relative or down-to-earth as politics are comparatively.

But I am sure I am not stating anything new here... Most of the time, I simply grow frsutrated and quit in such debates, which is what I will do now. Not that the behaviour of posters is bad, it is just that this is pointless. Even mere discussion of this is pointless. None of us can operate with the tetrabytes of the summaries of climate change. This is like five-year olds debating on the validity of US Supreme Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden.

[CountArach]

Well, friend, I live in Minnesota.

At this very moment, I am looking out a window and watching snow fall.

Which, by the way, is just WRONG because we shouldn't get snow for another month. At least, I don't remember snow in early October happening very often. In fact, I remember the last couple years when you could see grass in January and February.

We're already hitting temps of 30 and 20 during daytime, no doubt quite a way below zero at night. (Last year we fell below -50F).

So suffice it to say that we are NOT suffering from global warming up here.

(By the way, if you have any, you're welcome to send it up here.)

Sydney basically had no Winter this year.

[Agent Miles]

Rather than conspire with the rest of you to insult everyone’s intelligence, I am of the opinion that we actually can understand this.

Science starts with observation. We watch apples fall and somebody sees a fundamental truth in what they observed. After much consideration and the stringent application of math, a hypothesis emerges. Not a law or theory yet, just a suggestion for consideration. People who might understand such things, called peers, check the data, do the math and see if they can get the same result. Now biologists don’t peer review physics, or vice verse, but someone objective with the necessary expertise has to get the same result or its back to the drawing board. If everything is good to go, then it gets chiseled in stone…just kidding. Laws and theories are sitting ducks. The Big Bang is the most tested theory in history according to NASA, but it is still alive and well because it continues to pass every test.

Environmentalists observed that since the late nineteenth century the amount of carbon dioxide has risen from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts in the atmosphere. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. They also observed that the mean average temperature of the world rose by about one degree centigrade over that period. They then made a hypothesis that the two were connected. Other environmentalists reviewed this conclusion and agreed. Without waiting for the testing part, politicians took the ball and ran with it. This was the reason that the ice caps were melting, that it rained too much or not enough. Polar bears were dying out and the induction current of the Atlantic was going to grind to a halt. However, the testing is part of the scientific method and it continued in spite of the politicians.

I suppose this is the complex part that we are not qualified to think about, so fasten your seat belts.

Data collection from the 1800’s is not good. Data collection from right now is not much better. Who observed it? How was it collected? If the data is off by a few tenths of a degree, then there might be no increase in mean temperature at all. Besides, maybe the “mean temperature of the world” went down two hundred years ago or two thousand. The temperature of the world is a moving target. It’s bad science to intentionally show data that only supports your conclusion.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Yessiree, there is no way around that fact. People make a lot of it, too. As do volcanoes and cows and natural forest fires… and we really should do something about it.

My apologies, but now we must discuss the math. (Stop booing!) The environmentalists had a lot of math, so much that they used computers to crunch all of the weather effects that come from rising CO2. The math is actually so complex that the computers they had access to couldn’t do all the calculations for a world-wide weather system. Very few computers can do such complex system calculations. So they have several partial systems. They get results that are then combined to get an approximate overall picture. Results like the effect of rising CO2 in one system and rising temperatures in another and then stronger hurricanes in another system caused by the rising CO2 and temperature. The problem was that environmentalists may not have really great computers, but physicists do. The physicist’s computers did the math and rising CO2 with rising temperatures actually cause milder hurricanes. So how many other calculations are in doubt? Math has been referred to as the language of the universe. By some unknown trick of fate, math can simulate anything from the actions of atoms to super galaxy clusters. For a science, if you get the math wrong, you are doomed.

Now, of course, the environmentalists who performed the honest peer review of this hypothesis pointed out these problems right from the start…just kidding again. Along with knowledge of the subject, true stolid objectivity is required for a peer review. It’s not good police work if the police conspire as to who should be guilty.

All of this came out in testing by people who just wanted the truth to be known. Truth belongs in science; the alternative all too often belongs in politics.

[Vladimir]

the principle green aim i hold to is maintaining a biosphere that enables and advances the human condition, that includes:
> reducing pollution
> providing clean water
> providing housing
> providing storm protection
> providing electricity and non-poisonous heat sources

the list could include reducing CO2, but it won't until i'm convinced the AGW is both catastrophic (i.e bad for the human race), principally anthopogenic (i.e. we won't buck natural cycles), and principally caused by CO2 (i.e. how much money should we spend on each anthropogenic cause).

That's my point too but it's subject to individual interpretation. How important is biodiversity to the human condition? How do you track, maintain, and control all the influences? You experience the same problems as with global warming.

I still say we migrate. The technological advances and lessons learned along the way will go a long way to improving life here on Earth. This petri dish is getting crowded.

[Fragony]

For those too young to remember, we were told that a new ice age was on it's way back in the 70s.

Well I have been dead since 2000, acid rain finally did it.

these silly apocalyptoloco's.

[Centurion1]

There are a lot of respected scientists who say global warming is a crockpot. i think the world goes through natural cycles and that twenty years fom now people (probably al gores son) will be preaching the imminent ice age. The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.

Gah, and al gore is an idiot. some of those scenes in an inconvenient truth of ice caps melting are from the day after tomorrow. That that man won the Nobel peace prize, it is empty for me........

[Sarmatian]

Caring about environment isn't a bad idea. Just because there is no consensus among scientists about what's really happening doesn't mean we should pump as much CO2 in the atmosphere, leave plastic waste in forests and dump oil into the ocean.

We're rich enough to afford spending some money on environment.

I'm no expert on the issue but according to my knowledge, there have been significant variations in temperature in some periods even during recorded history.

[Centurion1]

i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)

[Rhyfelwyr]

i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)

I never really understood that argument. My geography teacher used to always say it was arrogant of ourselves to think we could destroy the planet.

However, the thing is, we're not going to destroy it, but even a relatively small change in climatic conditions on the surface could leave us unable to inhabit it.

It won't make a big difference to the earth as a planet, but to us as a species it could.

[Ironside]

Well I have been dead since 2000, acid rain finally did it.

these silly apocalyptoloco's.

Don't you recall that tiny matter of acid rain being reduced due to heavy regulation and is still requireing calcinations of lakes and causes the destruction of lime stone, that was mentioned last time you brought the subject up?

Those side product streams of sulphuric acid isn't sold for profit you know.

Anyway cutting it fairly short.

Since oil depence is going to be needing a replacement fairly soon (the peak oil of cheap oil has already passed), a process that is going to take decades, would it be more prudent to start focusing on a replacement now instead of when the gasonline prices are cheap when they're twice as high as now? That this coincides with CO2 reductions and gives time to see the effects, instead of doing nothing, is just a boon. And in best case scenario, no man made increase in temperature. In worst, we have a developed system to counter it, without being forced to shut down the industry.

As for uncertain old data. Tree lines growing higher, melting polar ice, most glaciers shrinking, shorter winters and crops being able to grow further north are more physical signs of it becoming warmer. To add that it has been warmer before and that a warmer climate might actually support more biomass (exception is the sea and its critical 4 degree C zone), but a incread temperature means a weather shift. That in turns affect rainfall patterns that in turn affect agriculture negativly until proper adaption is done. Rapid changes makes it hard to adapt. That's not counting increasing water levels.

About uncertain models, in weather there's a difference between full accuracy and general trends that are much easier to predict. For example will 2010 be a warm year due to an El Nino forming. Warmer than this year for example (that will be a warm year).

[Aemilius Paulus]

The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.

Sorry, you made a valid point, but in an exceedingly and humorously hypocritical manner. Remember, a theory is something that has been observed countless times, something that is backed up by immense amounts of data and general scientific consensus.

A theory is a couple of steps away from a natural law. The only distinction between a theory and a law is generally the fact that a law must be capable of being observed directly. If something is not capable of that, then it must forever remain branded as "theory" until it is observed directly.

Thus, to call something in science an "unproven theory" is no different from saying "pleasurable torture" or 'harmonious annoyance". Do not mix the popular definition of the noun "theory" with the proper scientific one. Otherwise you just made a serious miscalculation. Such as those people who dismiss evolution on the grounds "it is just a theory - the evolutionists themselves say so". How false. Evolution on a large scale has not been well-observed, but no serious scientist doubts for even a nanosecond the validity of the "theory" of evolution. A scientist regards a theory as equal to fact for all practical purposes.

Thus, the global warming is a hypothesis, meaning someone came up with a suggestion, a wild idea, it was already brought up in a community of scientists, then thoroughly researched, and only after that was a hypothesis formed, or a very well-educated guess. Now we are in the long period of experimentation, in hopes of proving or disproving the hypothesis. However, let no one tell you global warming is a "theory". No, it is a long way from that.

[Centurion1]

i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.

Of course thank you for your correction, you are indeed right.

Most importantly my point got across

[Aemilius Paulus]

i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.

Ahh, I see . Good thing you do know. Most do not.

[Centurion1]

Sorry i was at school.


You do no AP that while you and i may not consider it a theory, many people do. I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.