PDA

View Full Version : Climate change a natural occurence or man made?


southerncross
09-19-2008, 10:06 AM
G'day all :)
Let's have a hopefully friendly discussion/debate on this subject, I know a lot of people have very strong views and opinions regarding climate change but please try and keep it civil and attack the subject and not the poster huh.

To Kick things off I'm a climate change skeptic , It's not that I don't think the climate changes, I just don't think that human's are the cause of it. And even if we were, why is the main focus of all the Goreolites choosing Co2 as the main cause of anthropogenic warming?
If anything H2O would have more of an effect than anything else when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Why the big obsession with carbon when there are a lot more gases produced by man that could be doing damage to the planet like poisoning our food chain or our children?
Why is it we are continually fed tripe from the media such as the recent story on the North West passage being open for the first time in 125,000 yrs when it is obviously not true? Why is it that Al Gore was so popular but the fact that His Inconvenient Untruths didn't matter ?

An Inconvenient Truth was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted "nine scientific errors":

1. The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation
2. It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"
3. Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
4. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established
5. The drying of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
6. Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
7. Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"
8. The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult
9. The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"

Source: The Guardian

Climate changes all the time but are we really to blame? I'd like your thought's and opinions backed up with at least a bit of evidence or reasonable/plausible argument.
Who knows we might just save the world.:D

dbuk
09-19-2008, 10:59 AM
9 mistakes in a feature length documentary is actually quite few - especially in a polemic. (I make docs for a living). And in this case it was largely disagreements about the weight of evidence in a court of law - not that the facts themeselves were provebly wrong. In fact the guardian went on to report about this court case thus:

"The judge's ruling is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which is now available on the TeacherNet website." He added: "Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. Schools have a special role to play in helping pupils understand its causes and in exploring if and how we should respond.

"The court's decision recognises that the secretary of state 'understandably formed the view that An Inconvenient Truth was an outstanding film and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils.' "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge, to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.

"However, it is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences - are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion. Nothing in the judge's ruling today detracts from that."

As for your query about the importance of CO2; water vapour does have more effect on the climate than C02; however as the New Scientist notes:

So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2.

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up.

Of course, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emitted by humans. And many, such as methane, are far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule.

While methane persists for only about a decade before breaking down, other gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), can persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands years. Per molecule, their warming effect is thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. (Production of CFCs in now banned in most of the world, but because of their ozone destroying properties, not greenhouse properties.)

But the overall quantities of these other gases are tiny. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity.http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

southerncross
09-19-2008, 11:36 AM
G'day dbuk and welcome to the Debate, your point is taken about the weight of evidence in a court, but then again old Al was purporting this doco as Truth wouldn't you say? I would also beg to differ on your statement that not that the facts themselves were provably wrong some of them are.
EG:
COPENHAGEN July 6 (LPAC)--A new study by Danish scientists proves the official climate doomsday theory is wrong, according to reports in today's Danish press. In movies like Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth," it is stipulated how an increasing temperature cause the melting of the Greenland icecap, causing much higher sea levels. But a new study published in the scientific journal Science by Professor Eske Willerslev from Biological Institute at the Copenhagen University, shows a much different story. By investigating DNA found in old ice cores, the study proves that during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the temperature of Greenland was an estimated 5 degrees C higher than today, the southern part of Greenland was not melted.

"Up until now it has been thought that the Southern part of Greenland and big parts of the Northern was ice-free in the so-called Eem-period 125,000 years ago," Eske Willerslev is quoted in Jyllands-Posten. "But all the ice in the Southern part didn't melt. That contradicts the ice models used up until now. And it indicates that the ice in the Southern part of Greenland probably is more stable in relation to climate changes than has been anticipated up until now."
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/07/07/al-gore-proven-wrong-usual-pre-historic-warmer-greenland-did.html

Just one point there, but I am still curious as to why the main focus of climate change centers on CO2 as opposed to other more harmful gasses? Is it just because it is easy to tax and therefore more profitable as an identifiable source of income for governments rather than an actual threat to the environment?

dbuk
09-19-2008, 12:35 PM
I was saying in most cases with the 9 facts that the judge queried, he did not show that they were all wrong but rather that the evidence was inconclusive. In any 90 minute scientific documentary you will have scientific arguments that might be controversial or will be superceded by new evidence - it does not nescesarilly mean that the whole thrust of the film is wrong.

In this case a judge in a court of law studied the film in detail and held it up to fine scrutiny and found only 9 (mostly minor) points of contention. As the article states: The central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth - that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences - are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion. Nothing in the judge's ruling today detracts from that

And so the film was allowed to be continued to be used in our education system.

Just because you can find some errors in a work such as the one you quote does not nescessarily mean that the rest of the work should automatically discounted. Even if the ice modles were wrong in this particlura case it does not counteract all the other evidence that AGW exists.

If other gasses were found to be responsible for climate change why would they be any harder to tax than C02? We would just monitor and tax those instead.

As the new scientist artcile states: CO2 is...responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity.

C02 is responsible for such a vast amount of global warming because we produce so much of it compared to other gasses - just think of all those cars and coal powered power plants pouring C02 in the atmosphere continually.

The fact is we concentrate on C02 not for taxation reasons but scientific ones.

Flint
09-19-2008, 03:56 PM
This debate is improperly framed. You'd have problems finding any meteorologist who thinks that human activities have NO influence on climate change, nor any who think human activites are ENTIRELY responsible for climate change. So the question is, just how much of what sort of change are our activities contributing?

Most of the climate models envision global climate as reflecting a rather delicate equilibrium, with many independent factors subject to both positive and negative feedback. A negative feedback example might be the earth's distance from the sun, which will provide a fairly constant supply of insolation - not enough to keep the planet really hot, too much for the planet to get really cold. A positive feedback example is albedo - the more ice melts, the less insolation is reflected back to space, the warmer the planet gets, the faster the ice melts.

But just how sensitive is the resulting equilibrium? Historical evidence (we're talking geological evidence, from half a billion years ago) indicates that the entire planet swung far enough to the cold side, to be entirely glaciated. This is called "snowball earth", and some evidence suggests it occurred several times. Other evidence exists for "hothouse earth", a time when even the poles were tropical, there were no ice caps, etc. So given our distance from the sun, swings in climate CAN be wide enough to make the planet uninhabitable for humans at either extreme.

Further evidence suggests that ice ages (these are WELL documented, and there have been many) are not gradual in their onset. Glaciation has typically gone from nonexistent to covering all the way to mid-temperate zones in less than a century. Ice ages also appear to end just as rapidly.

So the global climate equilibrium is regarded as delicate, so that some small positive feedback we might inadvertently kick off, can result in massive climate change in a short time. It might be a change in atmospheric composition, or perhaps a change in ocean currents, or in the jet stream, or in albedo.

The key notion here is, delicate equilibria can be thrown out of whack by very small changes. Imagine pressing two sticks hard together end to end. So long as you're pressing them directly against one another, you're in equilibrium. But someone only needs press very softly but 90 degrees differently where the sticks meet, and the result is a violent collapse of the equilibrium.

So OK, are the changes we're making to our world likely to trigger some state change? Tell me what you want to hear, and I'll produce a model just as plausible as any other to "predict" that. Our knowledge is simply insufficient to make more than general statements that we ARE making changes, and these changes DO have results in lab experiments. We can even measure most of our changes, and our measurement techniques improve all the time.

In the political world, things are seen differently. Changing our global lifestyle would be hideously expensive to attempt, and probably impossible to accomplish. Which is a damn high price to pay when we MIGHT not be pulling on the trigger at all. We have a tiger by the tail; we can't let go.

A.T. Hagan
09-19-2008, 04:00 PM
Climate change a natural occurence or man made?
a FRIENDLY Debate

Good luck with that.

.....Alan.

southerncross
09-20-2008, 12:32 PM
Good luck with that.

.....Alan.

Yeah thanks Alan..... So what's your point?:lol::lol::lol:

So Flint where do you stand on the Anthropgenic/Natural cause Debate? You've obviously done a lot of reading and have ingested a fair bit of info on the subject but what do your bones tell you on this subject? you have displayed a great deal of knowledge regarding current research etc


So OK, are the changes we're making to our world likely to trigger some state change? Tell me what you want to hear, and I'll produce a model just as plausible as any other to "predict" that. Our knowledge is simply insufficient to make more than general statements that we ARE making changes, and these changes DO have results in lab experiments. We can even measure most of our changes, and our measurement techniques improve all the time.

but what are your own feelings on this subject telling you and why?

Torange
09-22-2008, 04:39 PM
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm

snip

Suicidal conspiracy

A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.

In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." (Wood,1990) .

The climatic issue became now perhaps the most important agenda of the United Nations and politicians, at least they say so[1]. It became also a moral issue. In 2007 addressing the UN General Assembly Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, pointing at climatic skeptics stated: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate change”. But earlier “scare them to deaths!” morality of “climatists”[2] was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Schneider, 1989) .

The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Gore, 2006) . In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari, the chairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report: “I hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious action” (Crook, 2007) . Thus IPCC does not have ambition to present an objective climatic situation, but rather “to shock” the people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC, 2008) , but rather disastrous global economic and societal consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the global energy system, the primary driving force of our civilization. This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement apparently have in mind.

snip

southerncross
09-24-2008, 10:45 AM
MMMMM O.K do you have any other references for this Theory? don't get me wrong it is just as plausible as anything else that has been bought forth to promote the (Oh My god were all gonna die) anthropogenic climate change brigade...just a little bit out there.
I would be interested in seeing some other references other than that above.
Torange thanks for the info M8.

Longrodz
09-24-2008, 04:11 PM
The problem with making any statements about global temperature trends is that the data does not exist to support any claim. All temperature records that exist are land-based. Seventy-five percent of our planet is covered by water. To make statements about global temperature trends you would need surface air temperature records from those areas as well, and they do not exist. We do not know if average global temperatures have increased or decreased because we do not have the data.

That was the past. Now moving forward into the future, things have changed. NASA has launched a series of satellites called the Aqua Project that are capable of measuring land, sea and air temperatures (and a whole bunch of other parameters) over the entire globe. It can be read about at: http://aqua.nasa.gov/index.php. The satellites have not been up for very long, so no meaningful statements concerning global temperature trends can yet be made. It will be a few years yet before we know what is going on with average global climate, but when we do, THEN we can speculate as to the why.

mordan
09-24-2008, 07:09 PM
As I live under the sea I can't say I have noticed much change recently.
Unless snowball earth is immanent I'm not too worried. Then everyone to there own as humans like to say.

Flint
09-26-2008, 05:55 PM
So Flint where do you stand on the Anthropgenic/Natural cause Debate?From my reading of both the articles and the editorials of Nature, Science, Science News, Scientific American, and others, Anthropogenic global warming is regarded as being much like "intelligent design" - a political football, whereas no serious controversy exists to speak of within the world of science. This bears repeating: As of today, APG is not considered a scientific issue. THAT issue is settled. Human activities are and continue to be the primary cause of climate change today.

So the debate within the scientific community has shifted from description to prescription. OK, the real issue is, what can we DO about it? Anything? At what cost? Are there technological fixes available? What are the tradeoffs? How might global warming play out - where should we pay closest attention? To glaciers? Ice sheets? Sea level? Ocean currents? Atmospheric heating? Albedo changes? Are changes likely to happen very slowly over a century, or will there be some sort of sudden phase change at some point? What contributors to global warming are most easily controlled? Are there any actions we can take to cancel or counteract them? Which data should we collect (recognizing that collecting data costs money) to get the most useful understanding? And so on.

caonacl
09-27-2008, 06:01 PM
EPA Fascism versus America: The Failed Predictions of the Environmentalists (5 of 7)

by John Lewis and Paul Saunders (http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?ID=425) (September 27, 2008)


This is the fifth in a seven part series detailing our objections to plans by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to claim unlimited power over the life of every American. Those plans were laid out in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), dated July 11, 2008. The EPA is inviting comments to this advance notice. This article explains the fourth of our six major objections to the EPA plans. The total of our objections, including our letter, our comments, and a link to the EPA website, may be accessed at: http://www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm (http://www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm)


Comment Number Four: The Failed Predictions of the Environmentalists

We oppose these measures on logical grounds, because claims to man-made global warming are merely the latest in a century-long series of failed predictions of climate catastrophe, built on emotion and not on reason. These dire predictions have alternated between cooling and warming--cycles that have run parallel to the Earth’s natural climate variations.

From the story of Noah’s Ark to the myth of Atlantis, human beings have periodically destroyed themselves in folklore, creating divine vengeance to fall because of their sins or raising up inexplicable natural forces to wipe out their cities. In the ancient world these stories had a factual basis: the island of Thera sank into the sea after its volcano exploded, and the city of Sicyon in Greece is now underwater. Not long before this, the Sahara was a savannah with crocodiles and huge fish in lakes, and the Nile River valley was a haven from “radical climatic changes” in surrounding areas.[1] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn1) More recently, Greenland was, well, green.

20th century pundits wavered between premonitions of cold and heat. The New York Times, September 18, 1924, headlined “[Arctic explorer Donald] MacMillan Reports Signs of a New Ice Age.” On March 27, 1933, the bogeyman was a heat wave: “America in Longest Warm Spell since 1776; Temperature Line Records a New 25-Year Rise.” By May 21, 1975, the ice had returned: “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable,” until Dec 27, 2005, when “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming.”[2] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn2) Talk of a new ice age has returned in 2008, with meteorologists reporting that this winter ranks among the coldest on record. Gilles Langis, senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service, reported in the spring of 2008 that arctic ice is in places 10 to 20 cm [4 to 8 inches] thicker than the previous year.[3] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn3)

But scares are now used to justify greater government power. One advocate of the man-made global warming hypothesis, who seeks a foundation for political action, wrote that “global warming will soon take its place as a primary driver of a wave of mass extinctions that will sweep the planet this century.” To support this he predicts the imminent extinction of the polar bears in Canada’s Hudson Bay.[4] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn4) But polar bear population figures have increased globally from about 5,000 in the 1960s to over 22,000 in 2007. The sub-population on the west coast of Hudson Bay declined from 1200 to 950 in the years 1987 to 2004, but it had increased from 500 to 1200 in the 1980s. 300 to 500 of these dangerous carnivores are shot every year, nearly 50 of them on the west coast of the Hudson Bay.[5] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn5) The image of four dead polar bears—allegedly drowned by melting ice, but actually killed by an Arctic storm—was used to foster a deep-seated fear of global catastrophe, in order to empower a political agenda. Once the image had its emotional impact—fear—the facts became irrelevant. This is not science—it is propaganda.

The goal of such scare-mongering tactics is political action, not scientific understanding.
http://www.capmag.com/images2y346y/comics/cf/MovieDisaster-X.gif
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum (http://www.coxandforkum.com/)

Al Gore also dramatizes some event, usually weather-related, in order to instill fear of climate change. He uses a photo of a river in the Greenland ice, with the text “These photos from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes taking place on the ice there.”[6] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn6) But in 1953 arctic explorer R. H. Katz published a photo of the same kind of river in the ice on Greenland’s Adolf Hoels Glacier. Katz had also noted the ebb and flow of temperature levels: “We had expected to find a warmer climate, and the temperatures reported by Hgygaard and Mehren in 1931 had been much higher than on our trip.” [7] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn7)

The evidence from Greenland’s natural history shows Gore’s dramatization to be another distortion concocted for a political purpose. This is not science—it is propaganda.

In early 2007 the New York Times published an article about the discovery of land off western Greenland, so-called “Warming Island,” which they alleged was covered with ice for thousands of years, until unprecedented warming in the 21st century melted the ice.[8] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn8) But Ernst Hofer had published a book in 1957 showing this same area of Greenland devoid of ice.[9] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn9) Another doom-mongering claim has collapsed after examination.

Similar scares have come and gone. It is a good thing we did not draft laws to enforce the tenets of the Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows in 1972, Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb in 1968, and the “Club of Rome,” each of which reincarnated the collapse of capitalism predicted by Marx, the starvation promised by Malthus, and the biblical Battle of Armageddon.

What would the United States look like today, had Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring appeared in 1940 instead of 1962, and become a motive for political action before millions of American backyards and trees were sprayed with DDT? Americans today might still face malaria as they did before the spraying—which still ravages people in undeveloped nations who are pressured against using DDT. It is one of the great crimes of the century that one million people every year die of malaria in undeveloped nations.[10] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn10)

The state of weather and climate predictions today is still unreliable enough for Science magazine to run an article, synopsized as “Of the dozens of forecasting techniques proffered by government, academic, and private-sector climatologists, all but two are virtually worthless, according to a new study.”[11] (http://www.capmag.com/adfg54/admin_DocEdit.asp?ID=5271#_edn11)

Based on the history of climate scares over the past century, there is no basis for assuming that claims about catastrophic climate change being made today are true.


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5271

southerncross
09-28-2008, 10:24 AM
whereas no serious controversy exists to speak of within the world of science. This bears repeating: As of today, APG is not considered a scientific issue. Human activities are and continue to be the primary cause of climate change today.
APG is not a scientific issue?
Just the Co2 concentrations v the temperature levels are but one of the issues when it comes to the global warming argument. How can you say it is not a scientific issue when the major argument is that Co2 is the cause of APG ? Another problem with the APG argument is the effect of Co2 on warming when water vapour has a much greater effect on greenhouse warming than Co2.
So the debate within the scientific community has shifted from description to prescription. OK, the real issue is, what can we DO about it? Anything? At what cost? Are there technological fixes available? What are the tradeoffs? How might global warming play out - where should we pay closest attention? To glaciers? Ice sheets? Sea level? Ocean currents? Atmospheric heating? Albedo changes? Are changes likely to happen very slowly over a century, or will there be some sort of sudden phase change at some point? What contributors to global warming are most easily controlled? Are there any actions we can take to cancel or counteract them? Which data should we collect (recognizing that collecting data costs money) to get the most useful understanding? And so on.
I still feel that all these issue's are of little relevance until they have a solid realistic and accepted benchmark to measure against, Even Icecores and tree rings are vague and localized and seem to disregard the evidence that does not back up the APG
brigade.

The state of weather and climate predictions today is still unreliable enough for Science magazine to run an article, synopsized as “Of the dozens of forecasting techniques proffered by government, academic, and private-sector climatologists, all but two are virtually worthless, according to a new study.”[11]

Based on the history of climate scares over the past century, there is no basis for assuming that claims about catastrophic climate change being made today are true.
And yet they are willing to tax us and are wanting to enforce yet more taxes upon taxes in the name of an unproven man made climate change scenario that they are already spending the public's money on.

There is still only anecdotal evidence for direct human cause of climate change, yet overwhelming evidence of natural and cyclical climate change over millenia that has come about without any help from mankind, both sudden and gradual.
Just one large Volcano could pour more carbon and other greenhouse gases into the air in one year than man has over the last fifty years, how many volcano's have erupted in the last fifty years?

Flint
09-29-2008, 12:09 PM
APG is not a scientific issue?Correct. Within the scientific community, the issue is regarded as settled.

Now, it is widely understood that there are overpowering political reasons to doubt anything that will (1) be really expensive; (2) be really inconvenient, etc.

How can you say it is not a scientific issue when the major argument is...I didn't. I said that the scientific community regards the issue as settled. No longer a matter for serious, honest scientific debate. Obviously, it's still a matter for hand-waving, obfuscation, tobacco-style "insufficient data" claims, and on ad nauseum.

The models are regarded as verified, predictive, and useful. But it's also pretty much accepted that there isn't a damn thing anyone will do about it until too late. The economic and political barriers are impenetrable. The scientific community largely understands that saying "we told you so" is about the only satisfaction they'll ever get.

dbuk
09-29-2008, 12:26 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people aren't willing to accept that the science is settled - that the scientific community must be either wrong, exaggerating, or at worst, lying?

Why are people so passionate about trying to find a reason to discount the scientific consensus in the face of so much evidence?

I can understand why corporations and by extension governments would be so desirous to find an excuse not to take the threat serously - but what motivates individuals? Is it a reflex against the perception of being told what to do, is it the fear of further taxation or is it simply a distrust of those carrying the message (usually from the liberal end of the political spectrum).

I am sure many would claim it is merely a healthy interest in the validity of the science in what is certainly an improtant issue with serious ramifications. But this ignores the reality of the situation - which is those (in general) that are anti AGW come from a very fixed standpoint that will allways attempt to discount whatever evidence is presented. It is not the truth most appear interested in - but in finding a reason to discount the theory.

Flint
09-29-2008, 03:25 PM
It is not the truth most appear interested in - but in finding a reason to discount the theory.I've wondered about this as well. It's not like any of us as individuals can do much one way or another. My best guess is that those in developed countries, enjoying very comfortable standards of living, are in a can't-win situation. Global warming will change the status quo, and any change in status quo endangers those currently on top, which inspires denial all by itself. We can see that most of what AGW is attributed to - individual transportation, generating electric power, etc. - are those things our lifestyle simply can't work without.

And so, at least the way I see it, it looks like a lousy deal. We are guaranteed to have to sacrifice a LOT to do anything to slow AGW down, and in exchange we may accomplish nothing or next to nothing. Kind of like, throw $10 down this rathole, and MAYBE your grandkids will get $11 back out of it. Not a winning suggestion.

The way I see it, what me worry? We're polluting the world, we're destroying the food chain, we're dredging up the oceans, we're pecipitating a mass extinction of species, we're siphoning the aquifers dry, we're consuming non-renewable resources as fast as improving technology permits, we're breeding unchecked like bacteria, and we're supposed to worry about a 2-degree average temperature change over 100 years? Huh? Lost in the noise.

Longrodz
09-30-2008, 12:02 PM
Correct. Within the scientific community, the issue is regarded as settled.

:rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

In all fairness Flint, you are correct when you refer to the AGW debate as a "political football". The AGW debate was never about climate or science in the first place. It is a sociopolitical debate about opposing world views, different groups of people having different ideas of the way they think the world should be. The climate claim was never anything more than an instrument that engendered and facilitated this sociopolitical debate.

4,000 years ago, the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were able to get the common people to mold their world to the pharaoh's view by convincing the people that the pharaohs controlled the weather and the annual flooding of the Nile, that was so necessary to Egyptian agriculture. Today, the new pretenders to the pharaohs throne are using a more complex deception.

Flint
09-30-2008, 01:05 PM
The AGW debate was never about climate or science in the first place. Within the scientific community, it WAS about climate in the first place. Just because a matter falling directly in the scientific realm -- that is, something based on evidence, analysis, testing, and modifying explanations continuously -- happens to have bogglingly enormous political and social ramifications, doesn't mean it's purely political. Imagine if biologists discovered a means to immortality. Can you imagine the political implications? Yet this does NOT mean the issue of immortality is purely political.


The climate claim was never anything more than an instrument that engendered and facilitated this sociopolitical debate.Sorry, but this is simply wrong on the merits. The climate issue has certainly triggered a sociopolitical debate. But it's not correct to claim that because these debates occur, that what triggered them was not real. You have the cart before the horse.

Imagine if science should discover that there really is an intelligent entity manipulating reality as we know it at the quantum level. Yeah, you bet this would trigger intense theological debates, which might drown out everything else. But that doesn't mean the theological issues are a closed circle.

Today, the new pretenders to the pharaohs throne are using a more complex deception.This is probably true. AGW is a real, genuine phenomenon. How this phenomenon is positioned, what sorts of political forces it's used to direct and control, is a very different issue and almost entirely deceptive.

But just because a liar tells you the sun rises in the morning, doesn't mean it's not true. Instead, you must decide whom you choose to believe or become knowledgeable enough in the actual science to come to a fully informed conclusion. Very few people qualify on the scientific merits, but nearly everyone qualifies on imagining conspiracies. And in the psychological world, those easiest to deceive are those most convinced they can't be deceived. Much of politics depends on this truism.

Arianwen
09-30-2008, 04:56 PM
cao...that 'toon in your post made me LOL and I'm a tree/bunny hugger through and through. Funny shit though. :D

Longrodz
09-30-2008, 09:23 PM
Within the scientific community, it WAS about climate in the first place.

Perhaps I mis-phrased this. I was referring to the public AGW debate concerning what should be done assuming AGW is true, not the climate change debate within scientific circles that still continues. The claim of anthropogenic influences on climate and weather date back to at least the Medieval times, in Christian-influenced cultures in Europe, long before any temperature records were collected. The public debate of AGW, or any anthropogenic climate/weather issues, has existed longer than the scientific debate.


Sorry, but this is simply wrong on the merits. The climate issue has certainly triggered a sociopolitical debate. But it's not correct to claim that because these debates occur, that what triggered them was not real. You have the cart before the horse.

Flint, there is no evidence of a global climate issue. Temperature records from less than 25% of our planet's surface cannot be extrapolated to the entire planet and be expected to have any value. Once you start making assumptions (even electronically-generated ones (i.e. computer models) you’re not making statements of fact, you are guessing. Debates are frequently based upon half-truths, innuendo, guesses, and bald-faced lies, nothing “real“ (witness the Salem witch trials of the 1600‘s). What we have here is a cart and maybe we have a horse, and maybe not.

Basically, my position is that climate change is real, climate stasis is a myth. The problem when it concerns average global temperature trends is that we simply don’t possess the data to make any statements of fact. We can be certain that our planets average temperature does change over time, we just don’t possess any evidence of how it has changed since the pre-industrial past.

Average global temperature trends are not very interesting or informative, anyway. Average global temperatures are more of a calculated abstraction, than anything useful. It’s similar to the average American family with 2.2 children. No family has 0.2 of a child. Advocating that families should take measures to strive for 2.1 children would be nonsensical.

The climate trends across the diverse regions of our planet trend very differently. What people care about, and what affects them, is what the trend is where they live. Not some calculated global average. That is meaningless.

I view the AGW claims (Global Goring) as nothing more than another silly piece of nonsense that preys upon the Christian Guilt Ethic (that is so prevalent in the U.S. and Europe), to coerce people to adopt the world-view of others. Nothing more. Modern-day pretenders to the pharaohs throne.

Flint
09-30-2008, 09:46 PM
The claim of anthropogenic influences on climate and weather date back to at least the Medieval timesAh, I see where you are coming from. OK. You have taken the rather standard debating position that climate change is a natural, ordinary thing human activities have nothing to do with, never have, and never will. All I can tell you is, there is no real controversy in the scientific community that human activities are significantly influencing climate change. Your argument is not with me; I'm not an expert in these things.

Flint, there is no evidence of a global climate issue.Again, you are addressing the wrong audience. The scientific consensus in Science, Nature, Scientific American, and the specialized journals find sufficient evidence to resolve any honest doubts. There are, they readily admit, many dishonest doubts, as one would expect when the economic, social, and political powers that be are necessarily committed to a position of denial, whatever it takes.

Now, I'm put in the position of deciding whether to believe that ALL these professional experts are completely fooled, or that you are. Or alternatively, that they are fabricating all the evidence they present in exhaustive (and exhausting) detail, because YOU don't wish to see any of it.

I view the AGW claims (Global Goring) as nothing more than another silly piece of nonsenseYes, I can see that you do. I choose to believe the experts. You can believe whoever you want. Although I must admit, dbuk's question remains unanswered in my mind. WHY have you committed yourself to such hidebound, total denial? NO evidence? Hell, even the most self-blinded creationists see SOME evidence for evolution. They work hard to reinterpret it, but at least most of them are honest enough to SEE it.

The position you have somehow mated for life, is gradually melting away around you like an arctic ice floe. Soon you will be treading warm water, but I have no doubt you won't see any evidence nonetheless. I can only pity you, I'm sorry.

Longrodz
09-30-2008, 10:20 PM
Flint, it is now apparent to me that when it comes to AGW, you are a true believer. You believe because you want to. That’s okay with me. It cannot be argued with, it's like religion. It also means that further debate on this topic between us is pointless. I do perceive you to be an intelligent and well-spoken individual, and look forward to future discourse with you on other subjects. See you then.

southerncross
10-01-2008, 09:56 AM
There is NO direct evidence to prove that climate change is a direct result of human behavior, indirect or otherwise.
There is overwhelming evidence of natural climate change that has occurred time after time well before the onset of man made contributions to the current atmosphere.
Carbon Dioxide has very little to do with the rise or fall of temperature of the planet, there is ample evidence for this.
Yes, I can see that you do. I choose to believe the experts. You can believe whoever you want. Although I must admit, dbuk's question remains unanswered in my mind. WHY have you committed yourself to such hidebound, total denial? NO evidence? Hell, even the most self-blinded creationists see SOME evidence for evolution. They work hard to reinterpret it, but at least most of them are honest enough to SEE it.

Flint there is evidence on both sides of this debate, just because some evidence occurs over the line that refutes the current accepted one for all and all for one consensus that anthropogenic cause for climate change is a given in accepted circles , it does not negate the evidence for the opposing side of the argument.
I still stand by the argument that there is NO Proven evidence for man-made Anthropogenic Warming of the planet. Given the the limited timescale of records, the total lack of reliable benchmarks for measuring such change on a scientific level other than experimental, unreliable and localized ice core results that give contradicting results both pro and con to the debate, I am a little puzzled as to why a mind such as yours is so adamant that the result is a foregone conclusion? There are experts on both sides of this argument.
Climate change has been on the move for millions of years, back and forth just like the tides of the ocean. Stand still long enough and you would see the world turn from a barren desert to a lush rainforest right under your feet.
Co2 has a role to play in it's own right, it is NOTthe cause of global warming tho, and there are far more damaging gases out there. A decent volcanic eruption that has nothing to do with mankind can produce more gases in a week than mankind has in a year and can continue to do so for decades.
Climates have changed for millenia, and will continue to do so, why the obsession with a possible 2 degree difference in temperature that we have no control over when there have been much bigger changes in the past, only 13 thousand years ago sea levels were 120 meters lower, are we to Blame for that too?
The scientific community is split over this issue, it is not all a one way street, why is it that climate change is perceived as a human cause rather than a natural phenomenon by science?
We are assaulted all the time by news reports that exaggerate natural phenomena as a result of Human activity, the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheet's are but one of many. We have only been able to measure these changes for the last thirty years so why the alarm when something new happens that we have not seen before?
Just because something appears in such and such a magazine reported by some new graduate does not really denote a substantial realistic finding in the world of science.

The world will still be here long after the remains of our Human civilization has come and gone just like those that have come and gone before us such as the Dinosaurs and those before them. We have only been here for the last three million years compared to the Hundred + million years of the Dinosaurs, the existence of Insects before and after them and the rise of the Mammal species that we are part of.
For sure we may be the most intelligent of all that has passed before us but that still does not mean that we know it all or that we are the beginning nor end of the world as we know it, I feel that there is much more for us to learn about the cycles of our world than we have learn't so far and that we are just beginning to scratch the surface.
Just because you question the accepted current popular (funded) research of a particular period does not automatically refute the findings of your research, just over a hundred years ago all the popular science mags promoted the acceptance of the Earth as the center of the universe, more recently the ozone layer depletion was marking the end of the world, add to that the hysteria of the Y2K phenomenon, Just because something appears in a Mag does not make it true Flint, even if it appears in ten Mag's, they need something in their headlines to sell just like the tacky girl'y Mags M8.

dbuk
10-01-2008, 09:58 AM
I have been thinking about this. If you do not not believe that AGW is real one or more of the following is true:

1) You are a qualified climatoligist who has found scientific evidence disproving AGW, that somehow all other climatoligists have missed.

2) You think there is not a scientific consensus and many climatoligists don't believe in AGW, and their voices are being ignored.

3) You think that all climatologists are just wrong, depite the fact that they are more qualified than you to adjudge climate science.

4) You believe that there is a huge organised conspiracy which is peddling lies about climate change for nefarious means.

5) You have a strong belief (akin to a religious one) that climate change is not real, despite the evidence and scientific consensus.

Maybe other can think of other reasons. However lets take each of these in turn:

1) I doubt anyone here is a qualified climatologist - my apologies if you are!

2) The scientific consensus is clear - all the major scientific journals support AGW. The AGW deniers are most often not qualified climatologits - Those that are can be counted on a single hand (If there are any?). AGW deniers are most often found to be financially supported by oil companies. To deny a consensus requires willful ignorance of the facts and points to strong belief rather than rational analysis IMHO.

3) Why on earth should anyone take more seriously the opinios of someone who is unqualified, over the many who are?

4) This does not stand up to rational analysis - never mind the why - what about the how?

5) This is the most likely - and where the above arguments usualy spring from. To not beleive in AGW requires a consious decision to ignore the evidence and the scientific consensus. Just like creationism it is based in belief rather than a rational position.
But yet those that deny AGW always describe supporters as "believers" despite the fact that they are the ones that show the classic signs of belief.

southerncross
10-01-2008, 10:24 AM
I have been thinking about this. If you do not not believe that AGW is real one or more of the following is true:

1) You are a qualified climatoligist who has found scientific evidence disproving AGW, that somehow all other climatoligists have missed.

2) You think there is not a scientific consensus and many climatoligists don't believe in AGW, and their voices are being ignored.

3) You think that all climatologists are just wrong, depite the fact that they are more qualified than you to adjudge climate science.

4) You believe that there is a huge organised conspiracy which is peddling lies about climate change for nefarious means.

5) You have a strong belief (akin to a religious one) that climate change is not real, despite the evidence and scientific consensus.

Maybe other can think of other reasons. However lets take each of these in turn:

1) I doubt anyone here is a qualified climatologist - my apologies if you are!

2) The scientific consensus is clear - all the major scientific journals support AGW. The AGW deniers are most often not qualified climatologits - Those that are can be counted on a single hand (If there are any?). AGW deniers are most often found to be financially supported by oil companies. To deny a consensus requires willful ignorance of the facts and points to strong belief rather than rational analysis IMHO.

3) Why on earth should anyone take more seriously the opinios of someone who is unqualified, over the many who are?

4) This does not stand up to rational analysis - never mind the why - what about the how?

5) This is the most likely - and where the above arguments usualy spring from. To not beleive in AGW requires a consious decision to ignore the evidence and the scientific consensus. Just like creationism it is based in belief rather than a rational position.

But yet those that deny AGW always describe supporters as "believers" despite the fact that they are the ones that show the classic signs of belief.

On the other hand if you doubt any of the true believers you are discounted as a skeptic, mind you nearly all of the questions go both way's.

Flint
10-01-2008, 10:28 AM
Flint, it is now apparent to me that when it comes to AGW, you are a true believer. You believe because you want to.And of course, this is no different from you. We each select which group of experts we find to be more credible. I believe those who argue for AGW because they write the most persuasive cases, and do so in the most respected journals.

It also means that further debate on this topic between us is pointless.Here, I believe you are correct. I can decide to believe those paid to argue against AGW by folks with a vested interest in denying it, or I can decide to believe those who I think present the best case following best scientific methods of publication and peer review. But I cannot know, because that's not my field.

So all I can do is read the materials presented by both sides, and select whichever side I find more credible. Same as you. I believe you have bet on the losing side. I may not know which of us bet wrong in my lifetime. It doesn't bother me. I do not WANT any climate change.

But yet those that deny AGW always describe supporters as "believers" despite the fact that they are the ones that show the classic signs of belief.My conclusion is, this is due to the fact that the real Believers simply cannot conceive of how anyone would arrive at a conclusion in any other way. They project their True Belief approach onto everyone else. "My faith is beyond doubt. If you disagree, it must be because you have a false faith."

Just because something appears in a Mag does not make it true Flint, even if it appears in ten Mag's, they need something in their headlines to sell Well, here's a member of the conspiracy school of thought! What things appearing in scientific journals mean isn't that it's "true" but rather that it is supported by the evidence, is cogently and coherently argued in the opinion of experts in the field, presents the data and methodology for anyone else to reproduce, and is publicly open to dispute and disproof.

Now, for centuries this method has worked - it's been the best anyone has ever come up with. The main reason it works isn't because journal articles are Truth, but because they are falsifiable and public. Science moves forward by hypothesizing what someone thinks is true, conducting tests to support or discard it, publishing the tests and the results, and repeating endlessly. The state of the art improves by placing it in the crucible of often hostile examination and testing.

If two legitimate studies arrive at different conclusions, this is Good News, because it isolates the points of difference, and pretty well defines new and appropriate tests to figure out what's really going on. Studies that start with foregone conclusions and attempt to find or interpret evidence to fit, tend not to last very long when yet other valid evidence shows that these conclusions are incorrect.

And THIS is the process that has been going on for a decade now, in the area of climatology. Today's journal articles are refinements of yesterday's, which were yet refinements of the day before's. These are NOT simply opinion pieces written by people who are "true believers, who believe because they want to." They represent genuine cumulative research.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, the red herring that climate has always changed is simply dishonest. Yes, of course climate changes. There are many reasons for this. But this does NOT mean that because (for example) CO2 was much more prevalent in the atmosphere during the Paleocene period (which was quite warm), therefore humans raising CO2 levels aren't responsible for doing so! If humans should learn to trigger volcanos (and should do so frequently), does this mean humans are NOT responsible for the climate change those volcanos cause, on the grounds that volcanos in the past also caused changes?

The question the climatologists are addressing is, can todays climate changes be attributed to anything people are doing to the world. The answer very clearly is, yes they can. The question of to what degree humans are responsible is very much open to further research. Which is being done.

Flint
10-01-2008, 10:39 AM
The questions that are appropriate to ask of the "skeptics" are for example:

1) Are they doing original research?
2) Are they publishing this research in the standard journals of this field?
3) As new research is done, are they changing their positions?
4) Is their skepticism producing fruitful avenues of investigation?

In other words, if there is a genuine scientific controversy, one of the presumptions behind the idea of science itself is that reality is the arbiter. This is why science dovetails onto unified agreements over time, rather than schisms into a zillion sects as religion does. Genuine research should triangulate in on more nearly correct and complete explanations, and those doing the research come to agree on what has been established and focus on what is still unknown or uncertain.

But the AGW deniers do little or none of this. No original research, no published methodologies and results in the accepted journals, no changing their mind or even conceding what has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. No suggested lines of research to learn more or to clarify unknowns or ambiguities.

And so they can get big budgets, they can make lots of noise, they can reinterpret and redirect and obfuscate and dispute. They can make converts. But these are not scientific techniques, and command no scientific respect.

dbuk
10-01-2008, 10:43 AM
Southerncross, why do you not agree with the validity of AGW?

Which of the five possible alternatives I give best describes the reason for your position? Or do you disagree with my analysis?

You have said that there is no evidence for human climate change - but many, many qualified climatoligists have explained in a great deal of scientific papers that there is a lot of compelling evidence for human climate change. Whose position would it be rational to belive? Yours, or that of the overwhelming majority of climatoligists? May I suggect that you say there is no evidence because you want to believe there is no evidence?

You go on to say that you think there is no scientific consensus - there must be a reason you have come to that conclusion - can you enlighten us?

southerncross
10-01-2008, 10:50 AM
Well, here's a member of the conspiracy school of thought! What things appearing in scientific journals mean isn't that it's "true" but rather that it is supported by the evidence, is cogently and coherently argued in the opinion of experts in the field, presents the data and methodology for anyone else to reproduce, and is publicly open to dispute and disproof.

Now, for centuries this method has worked - it's been the best anyone has ever come up with. The main reason it works isn't because journal articles are Truth, but because they are falsifiable and public. Science moves forward by hypothesizing what someone thinks is true, conducting tests to support or discard it, publishing the tests and the results, and repeating endlessly. The state of the art improves by placing it in the crucible of often hostile examination and testing.

If two legitimate studies arrive at different conclusions, this is Good News, because it isolates the points of difference, and pretty well defines new and appropriate tests to figure out what's really going on. Studies that start with foregone conclusions and attempt to find or interpret evidence to fit, tend not to last very long when yet other valid evidence shows that these conclusions are incorrect.

And THIS is the process that has been going on for a decade now, in the area of climatology. Today's journal articles are refinements of yesterday's, which were yet refinements of the day before's. These are NOT simply opinion pieces written by people who are "true believers, who believe because they want to." They represent genuine cumulative research.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, the red herring that climate has always changed is simply dishonest. Yes, of course climate changes. There are many reasons for this. But this does NOT mean that because (for example) CO2 was much more prevalent in the atmosphere during the Paleocene period (which was quite warm), therefore humans raising CO2 levels aren't responsible for doing so! If humans should learn to trigger volcanos (and should do so frequently), does this mean humans are NOT responsible for the climate change those volcanos cause, on the grounds that volcanos in the past also caused changes?

The question the climatologists are addressing is, can todays climate changes be attributed to anything people are doing to the world. The answer very clearly is, yes they can. The question of to what degree humans are responsible is very much open to question.
Reply With Quote
Member of the conspiracy school I think not, Not everything that appears in a scientific journal is necessarily a proven fact of science, many are just articles of opinion or just opinion pieces based on current ongoing research, nothing near peer backed papers nor commonly accepted evidence. They are magazine articles in the most and have no real basis in scientific Fact . You can quote all you like about current research and lay out all the fact's that have been proven over the last Decade. The FACT still remains that all of the research, all of the finding's, all of the proven science is still based in the current era, IE: the last thirty years.
They have no credible science to back up any findings they might propose other than that based on the records that they have. And the only credible records that they have only cover the last forty years at most.
This is not science, this is hypothesis.

southerncross
10-01-2008, 10:55 AM
Number Four Dbuk paragraph two.

dbuk
10-01-2008, 11:06 AM
Number Four Dbuk paragraph two.

Sorry, just to be clear - you are saying that AGW is a conspiracy?

And you are supporting this by stating that 30 years of records are not enough to base climate change theory on?

I just want to make sure I understand you right.

Flint
10-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Not everything that appears in a scientific journal is necessarily a proven fact of science, many are just articles of opinion or just opinion pieces based on current ongoing research, nothing near peer backed papers nor commonly accepted evidence.This statement is so hopelessly false, it's no wonder we're not communicating. But I'll keep trying for a while.

1) What's published in scientific journals aren't "proven scientific facts", they are reports of research methods and results, written in such a way that anyone can replicate the research and (usually) get the same results.

2) None of them is EVER "just articles of opinion or just opinion pieces". Journals are reserved for research methods and results. Now if you stretch hard enough, you might say that the articles' conclusions (where the authors make their best inferences from the data) are "opinion", but this would not be accepted as a valid interpretation.

3) ALL journal articles are peer reviewed.

4) The evidence presented is what was generated by the study, and (once again) the detailed methodology is required to be presented, so that anyone can replicate the study and get the same evidence. None of the evidence is denied, EXCEPT by those who replicate the study and get different results. This happens, and is very valuable when it does. And when it does, more people do more research along slightly different lines to see what happened. And in the process learn a lot. Which has been going on in this field for some time now.

Now, Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal in that sense, and the articles there are often at a more abstract level, summarizing detailed findings and drawing higher-level conclusions.

This is not science, this is hypothesis.Huh? That's like saying "this is not a highway, this is pavement!" Hypothesis is what science rests on. EVERYTHING in science is a hypothesis. Even full-blown theories are only collections of related hypotheses. You need to understand how science works.

And you are right about the time baseline as well. Nobody is claiming that we have anything close to comprehensive evidence of everything we need. The best science can EVER do is to (1) propose explanations that best fit all known evidence; (2) make predictions based on those explanations; and (3) test those predictions to see if they're correct. If they're not, the proposed explanation needs more work. This process never ends. There will NEVER be full evidence of ANYTHING. The question is, how accurate does a set of predictions need to be, before it makes sense to accept a hypothesis as being probably correct?

Science can only handle what's possible. If you've decided that measurements not taken in the past and forever unavailable, render all conclusions about current trends useless, then you've basically thrown your hands in the air and given up. Nonetheless, scientists have NOT given up - they continue to collect evidence, form and test hypotheses, make predictions, and hone their models based on more and more evidence, more results, more successful predictions, the very stuff that scientific theories rest on.

Now, if you don't WANT the evidence to indicate AGW, you are free to take any journal article and replicate the study to show how it's wrong. You are free to devise testable hypothesis showing that people aren't changing the climate. You are free to get these peer-reviewed and published.

But short of that, you are taking the same position toward AGW that Michael Behe takes toward evolution: that it's false, and THEREFORE no amount of evidence can EVER be sufficient. And this isn't a scientific position at all, it's religious.

southerncross
10-03-2008, 11:40 AM
Wrong paragraph dbuk!
4) This does not stand up to rational analysis - never mind the why - what about the how?
How do scientist's that are unable to predict the current weather with any real precision with all of the instruments and records that are available to them in this current time expect to be able to predict the future forecast going forward even three years from now let alone a hundred years? Even their best estimates are subject to unforeseen variances or influences that play havoc with their long term forecast's.
I might add that all of their forecast's are based on their previous record's, all of witch are localized and only relate to those records recorded in localized areas over the last fifty years with any real reliance.
This is the problem with trying to forecast the weather in a hundred years, when they try to relate the weather in Texas or Australia with an Ice core from Antarctica or Greenland, or a tree ring sample from Israel that comes from a dated time in the past. It is akin to forecasting the weather for the next hundred years just based on the time of birth from You I or Flint, and taking the current temperature on that day, or time of day, or that time of year, or etc etc etc, and running some figures into a computer. I will admit that it is not so base or as simple as that, but that is the basic formula for concocting the future forecast for the planet at this time.
The original Kyoto got it wrong with their hockey stick, none of the subsequent research has taken into account even the sporadic occurrence of a volcanic eruption near their evidence collection into the equation when it comes to presenting evidence of AGW.
With the wealth of evidence pointing to a variance in the Earths history that indicates a greater range of difference than that which we enjoy or endure in this day and age so far as temperature and sea level have traveled since man has been cognizant of such things, I am comfortable with the changes that we have recorded and endured so far. There is ample historical evidence that goes back way into the recorded history of man before we were producing carbon that records the changes in both temperature and sea level rise that scientists are unable to explain nor blame on AGW. None of it is able to be put down on paper nor pointed to as reliable data in this day and age ,but the evidence is there for all to see as living history. I know for a FACT, that six thousand years ago I could of walked another 150 km further out to sea on dry land than I can now in the place where I live. Who do I blame for that?


This statement is so hopelessly false, it's no wonder we're not communicating. But I'll keep trying for a while.


I hope We do keep trying Flint as I appreciate your input even if I don't agree with you M8, You have a very sharp mind and I have learned from you in the past, maybe you could do the same .

The question the climatologists are addressing is, can todays climate changes be attributed to anything people are doing to the world. The answer very clearly is, yes they can. The question of to what degree humans are responsible is very much open to further research. Which is being done.


My response Flint is, very little, and at this moment I think that the whole climate change movement is basing their mantra on the basis that Humans are the main cause.

But the AGW deniers do little or none of this. No original research, no published methodologies and results in the accepted journals, no changing their mind or even conceding what has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. No suggested lines of research to learn more or to clarify unknowns or ambiguities.

Why ? Do you see any of the AGW promoters spousing alternative viewpoints as to the elevated Co2 amounts in the atmosphere in regards to the eruptions of Pinatubo or any other Volcanoes? do they take into account the elevated amounts of Co2 gases that might be released from the thawing of the permafrost in the Arctic or Antarctica, Siberia, Greenland, or any other country that might be thawing as a natural result of the regular cycle of Earths warming as part of a natural cycle?

And you are right about the time baseline as well. Nobody is claiming that we have anything close to comprehensive evidence of everything we need. The best science can EVER do is to (1) propose explanations that best fit all known evidence; (2) make predictions based on those explanations; and (3) test those predictions to see if they're correct. If they're not, the proposed explanation needs more work. This process never ends. There will NEVER be full evidence of ANYTHING. The question is, how accurate does a set of predictions need to be, before it makes sense to accept a hypothesis as being probably correct?

Science can only handle what's possible. If you've decided that measurements not taken in the past and forever unavailable, render all conclusions about current trends useless, then you've basically thrown your hands in the air and given up. Nonetheless, scientists have NOT given up - they continue to collect evidence, form and test hypotheses, make predictions, and hone their models based on more and more evidence, more results, more successful predictions, the very stuff that scientific theories rest on.

What's published in scientific journals aren't "proven scientific facts", they are reports of research methods and results, written in such a way that anyone can replicate the research and (usually) get the same results.

My point is Flint is that they base their fact's on they get what they are looking for . As I said to Dbuk earlier, You can not base a finding on localized research when you are trying to cover a whole planet, it just doesn't work. You might be able to get the same results over a certain area, you might even be able to nail the weather over a certain area if you have an exceptional climatologist for that given area and have good records for the last hundred odd years the thing is that it just not transfer to somewhere else.
Weather is one of the most changeable things on the planet and has been for centuries,
If scientist's were able to predict it properly we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.


And you are right about the time baseline as well. Nobody is claiming that we have anything close to comprehensive evidence of everything we need. The best science can EVER do is to (1) propose explanations that best fit all known evidence; (2) make predictions based on those explanations; and (3) test those predictions to see if they're correct. If they're not, the proposed explanation needs more work. This process never ends. There will NEVER be full evidence of ANYTHING. The question is, how accurate does a set of predictions need to be, before it makes sense to accept a hypothesis as being probably correct?

nge anyone to predWith weather it is all location, and your right it will never be spot on, there will never be an accepted hypotheses of correct weather...It just wont happen, weather changes, day in day out... I challeict it
Science can only handle what's possible. If you've decided that measurements not taken in the past and forever unavailable, render all conclusions about current trends useless, then you've basically thrown your hands in the air and given up. Nonetheless, scientists have NOT given up - they continue to collect evidence, form and test hypotheses, make predictions, and hone their models based on more and more evidence, more results, more successful predictions, the very stuff that scientific theories rest on.

challenge anyone to predict weather it is all location, and your right it will never be spot on, there will never be an accepted hypotheses of correct weather...It just wont happen, weather changes, day in day out... I challenge it

southerncross
10-03-2008, 11:50 AM
yet to finish response

Flint
10-03-2008, 12:06 PM
yet to finish responseSome of it seems to have become garbled.

Flint
10-03-2008, 03:59 PM
How do scientist's that are unable to predict the current weather with any real precision with all of the instruments and records that are available to them in this current time expect to be able to predict the future forecast going forward even three years from now let alone a hundred years?These are different sorts of predictions. A demographer can predict population trends extremely accurately, yet be utterly unable to predict exactly WHICH people will relocate, or have children. Similarly, it's possible to predict that rain will make everything wet, without being able to predict exactly where any particular drop lands.

There is ample historical evidence that goes back way into the recorded history of man before we were producing carbon that records the changes in both temperature and sea level rise that scientists are unable to explain nor blame on AGW.Blame, no, of course not. Explain? That's different. If we have historical records that show a high positive correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature, this is useful information even if we don't know what caused it. It give us a clue that we should examine how CO2 affects temperature. So we do experiments, and discover that more than a mere correlation, there is a causal relationship.

So now, we notice that THIS time, the additional CO2 is caused by human activities. We've established that additional CO2 warms the planet. We don't have to work real real hard to speculate with some justification that if CO2 from whatever source causes warming, and if WE are the source this time, then WE are causing warming.

My response Flint is, very little, and at this moment I think that the whole climate change movement is basing their mantra on the basis that Humans are the main cause.Well, I just provided the gist of it. This "mantra" is based on experiment, observation, prediction, test, modeling. The "mantra" resulted from the research.

My point is Flint is that they base their fact's on they get what they are looking for.I'm not sure I understand your point here. They are most emphatically NOT using foregone conclusions to decide what's a fact and what isn't. But it's true that a good predictive model says "If this model is correct, and if you do THIS or look THERE, you should observe THAT." If you discover that, yes indeed, you DO observe THAT, this lends support to your model. It also invariably suggests something else to try. Good models never run short of predictions. Bad models don't either, but the predictions don't pan out.

You can not base a finding on localized research when you are trying to cover a whole planet, it just doesn't work.Ah, but it does. You must understand principles. Let's say you hold up a brick and drop it. It falls. But does this "localized research" imply that the same thing would be true at the north pole? The theory of gravity says yes, it will be true anywhere within the gravitational field. It's how gravity works. Same with warming phenomena. If additional CO2 causes warming on planetary surfaces, then WHERE on the surface doesn't matter. Just like gravity.

Weather is one of the most changeable things on the planet and has been for centuries, If scientist's were able to predict it properly we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.I hope you recognize that weather and climate aren't the same thing. There is probably some relationship, but it's not well defined. None of the models can really predict how global warming will affect weather - whether it will mean more or less rain, whether it will mean more or fewer hurricanes, etc. - and efforts to tie the two together haven't worked very well. So please don't get confused. Predicting climate is possible. Predicting weather is impossible even in principle - it's chaotic.

But you need to be very careful to avoid what I've called the "tobacco fallacy" - the argument that if we do not know everything, then we don't know anything. What we have is a well-supported, solidly predictive model of climate. No model based on "human activities are irrelevant" has yet been constructed, whose predictions aren't all wrong.

caonacl
10-03-2008, 10:13 PM
Fraud of Global Warming
By SmartGreenUSA, 10/3/2008 7:41:46 AM

The former U.S. vice president, Al Gore, is now urging civil disobedience to stop coal plants. He told a New York audience recently, "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

Global Warming and Reinventing Government have been Gore’s two lifelong causes. He is using the one to accomplish the other. His fundamental assumptions and views of global warming were well documented in his film, An Inconvenient Truth. Thousands of schoolchildren have viewed it. Gore was even awarded a Nobel Peace prize for the documentary in 2007 which he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is telling that the very first Chairman of that IPCC group, John Houghton, had pronounced, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." True to script, Gore announced disasters and many listened.

As Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants for the sake of carbon dioxide emissions, it is time to revisit several of those assumptions and implications he made in An Inconvenient Truth. Each of the fourteen highlighted here is a snapshot of the Global Warming doomsayers’ views. The added perspective shows the fraud of the catastrophic manmade Global Warming thesis:

Carbon dioxide drives the temperature of the planet. Gore assumes that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the causal factor of warming temperatures. But, for at least 240,000 years carbon dioxide has been a lagging indicator of any warming. That means that the earth warms and, later, there is an increase in the gas carbon dioxide. Roy Spencer, Climate Research Scientist in Huntsville, Alabama, notes that "the cooling effects of weather have a stronger influence on surface temperatures than the warming influence of greenhouse gases." The major greenhouse gases are water vapor (which accounts for 70–90 percent of the effect), carbon dioxide and methane. Many scientists work on the theory that the sun is the prime driver of Earth’s climate. Earth temperature and sun activity do correlate closely. Additionally, many scientists examine the larger cosmos. Their theories reveal an interplay between the sun and cosmic rays – sub-atomic particles from exploded stars. Further, they discern long-term temperature patterns as our solar system moves through the arms of our Milky Way galaxy. Again, those events correlate more closely to Earth’s temperatures than do manmade carbon dioxide levels.

Temperatures will rise 1.5–4.5 degrees Celsius when CO2 levels double from a pre-industrial level of 280ppm to 560ppm. Because Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide changes has been overstated, the scientifically likely temperature result of such a doubling is 1.5–2.0 degrees Celsius. Earth’s current CO2 level is 380ppm.

Catastrophic Global Warming will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet. The work of scientists supports a sea level rise of about one inch per decade. In one hundred years it should rise 10–12 inches.

Catastrophic Global Warming is forcing island nations to evacuate their populations to New Zealand because of rising sea levels. Tuvalu was the poster child for this alarm, but neither Tuvalu nor any other islanders have evacuated to New Zealand.

Catastrophic Global Warming is melting Antarctic sea ice. But, Antarctic sea ice is thickening over the gigantic continent. This thickening reduces sea level. There is ice loss on a tiny sliver of the continent stretching out far northward. That is what Gore’s movie image relies upon. The ice shelf collapse there was more likely to have been driven by ocean current fluctuations.

Catastrophic Global Warming is resulting in extreme weather. Tornadoes? The US is home to one-third of all the world’s tornadoes. But, tornadoes have not increased. Drought? There is not greater incidence of drought. Record typhoons and cyclones? No. Hurricanes? There are about ninety-five hurricanes annually and globally. But, hurricanes are neither more frequent nor more intense. In 2004 the IPCC hyped hurricane-fears without any scientific soundness. Gore’s film footage implies that hurricane Katrina was an inescapable consequence of manmade globally averaged warming. Facts do not support that alarm.

Catastrophic Global Warming has caused global temperatures to be warmer now than they have been in 1,000 years. Gore’s graph displays a long level period ending in an upward sweep like a hockey stick, displaying the appearance of runaway temperatures. A young IPCC scientist named Mann created this hockey stick graph for a 2001 report, making the real Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear. It was an enormously effective prop. Alarmists used it for their the-science-is-settled position. It made the 20th-century temperature increase look unique. But, Mann’s methodology would have conjured any random set of numbers into a hockey stick. And, the temperature increase was not unique. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that this graph used flawed data. The IPCC has dropped the use of the Mann hockey stick from its 2007 Report. But, this piece of deliberate disinformation caused great damage to truth and science.

Catastrophic Global Warming has dried up Lake Chad. Lake Chad has been totally dry several times before humans were adding any CO2. That situation is due to over-extraction by communities.

Catastrophic Global Warming has been shrinking the snows of Kilimanjaro. By the time Ernest Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936, half of the snow was already gone. This is before man began releasing CO2 into the atmosphere to any extent by burning fuels for energy. No temperature on the mountain is above freezing. There has been no temperature change in fifty-five years. Shrinking is likely to be a circulation issue and lower precipitation, not a rising temperature issue.

Catastrophic Global Warming increases mosquito-borne malaria. Malaria was endemic to most of the developed world just fifty to one hundred years ago. We eliminated malaria in Europe and the United States while the world warmed. 600,000 people died of malaria in Siberia. Malaria sickens 300 to 500 million poor people annually, killing as many as 2.7 million each year. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 20 children dies of malaria. The approximately forty million humans killed by malaria since 1972 have died because a politician, William Ruckelshaus, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s first head, banned the beneficial pesticide DDT.

Catastrophic Global Warming is quickly melting Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice decreases during the summer melt season, and Arctic temperatures have risen faster than anywhere else. But, the Arctic region was warmer in the 1930’s. That could not have been caused by mankind. And, Artic sea ice has recovered from 3 million square kilometers to 14 million square kilometers. Ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska has more recently been at its highest level ever recorded.

Catastrophic Global Warming is killing polar bears. Factually, that claim was based on a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an "abrupt windstorm" in an area housing one of the increasing bear populations. Global polar-bear population has increased dramatically over the past decades.
Catastrophic Global Warming is melting Greenland’s ice. Greenland has been warmer. Its ice did not melt – except around its edges. There has been no net warming – and perhaps a slight cooling – since 1937. Vikings colonized and farmed Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. The return of colder climate drove them away.

And, lastly, for An Inconvenient Truth,

Catastrophic Global Warming has caused mass extinctions. Warming extends ranges for plant and animal species. Biodiversity is enhanced. That’s why the greatest concentration of biodiversity is in the tropics. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are shown to increase plant production, while lowering water requirements and reducing stress. Animals thrive on more abundant plant-life. Enriched CO2 has yielded an additional one-sixth production which would not have happened in its absence.

Each of these fourteen scenarios would have been an environmental bad had it happened and had it been empirically proven to have been caused by humans. The alarming events did not happen. The scary scenarios all came from computer climate models. There has been no empirical proof substantiating Gore’s claims and implications.

The hypothesis of catastrophic globally averaged warming resulting from human-caused carbon dioxide increases has failed. Failed hypotheses should be rejected.

The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to show that changes in carbon dioxide drive changes in temperature. Changes in carbon dioxide do not account well for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has had, including the Roman Warming (200 B.C. to A.D. 600), the cold Dark Ages (A.D. 440 to A.D. 900), the Medieval Warming (A.D. 900–1300 when CO2 levels were much lower than today), and the Little Ice Age (1300–1550 when there were few sunspots). The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis is a feeble theory made seemingly true by pure repetition.

The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to explain the reality of the last one hundred years. Half of our modern warming occurred from 1905–1940, when carbon dioxide levels were still quite low. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degrees Celsius. An interlude of global cooling occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, when CO2 levels were increasing. It totally fails to explain the absence of warming in the last ten years, despite a continuing rapid increase in CO2 concentration. If greenhouse action by carbon dioxide drove warming, the upper air should have warmed faster than the surface, but observations show the opposite has been the case. Although computer models say temperatures should have risen, Alabama temperatures have fallen for 115 years. Citrus crops used to be common. What could you do about this catastrophe? Buy jackets and get out of the citrus business. In other words, adapt.

It is fraud to spread alarmism of catastrophic "human-caused global warming" based upon projections generated from computer climate models which have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. It is fraud upon fraud to throw scarce resources at Global Warming when such expenditures will have inconsequential results except to impoverish us, notwithstanding that Al Gore believes it will be good for our spirituality to work together on such a common cause. There are real and achievable global causes of diseases, malnutrition, sanitation and energy that are valid projects and worthy efforts – efforts that Bjørn Lomborg endorses in his book, Cool It. No global efforts toward expensive CO2 cuts are valid or worthy. Current Climate policies are health and wealth destruction policies. Doomsayers are claiming that climate can be adjusted in some predictable way, but it can not. It is fraud to claim that it can. As published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. has conducted studies that thwart the greenhouse effect. What that means is that "just because the greenhouse effect is real, it does not follow that an increase in intensity will necessarily lead to a significant increase in mean global air temperature, as climate alarmists are wont to claim…Hence it is not inconceivable that an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration may result in no warming at all. Or even a cooling!...Much more research will be required before we can determine that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content even constitutes a problem, much less specify its magnitude and prescribe ameliorative measures for dealing with it." The magnetic attraction of government funding for global-warming research, the political climate of fear-based policies seen in both climate issues and economic issues, and doom-sopping journalism works to push events into a downward spiral of exaggeration and hype. Al Gore rides this emotional wave. He has refused all debate with climate scientists. It is after all, for him, not about truth. For him truth is simply inconvenient.


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c228272f-f02d-494e-be7b-e38df8ea15f8

southerncross
10-05-2008, 11:00 AM
These are different sorts of predictions. A demographer can predict population trends extremely accurately, yet be utterly unable to predict exactly WHICH people will relocate, or have children. Similarly, it's possible to predict that rain will make everything wet, without being able to predict exactly where any particular drop lands.Population, children, moving house and that aside Flint the difference is that a demographer is not the one saying that We as a population are responsible for the current level of global warming, There is also the point that their research and statistic's are a lot more reliable and predictable and also can be accurately cross referenced according to other recent records. The analogies have nothing in common when it comes to predicting the future climate of the planet in regards to AGW.
You can not separate weather and the future forecasts that come with the dire predictions of AGW.

So now, we notice that THIS time, the additional CO2 is caused by human activities. We've established that additional CO2 warms the planet. We don't have to work real real hard to speculate with some justification that if CO2 from whatever source causes warming, and if WE are the source this time, then WE are causing warming.Have we really established that Co2 warms the planet Flint? There is plenty of of current evidence out there that say's not.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
http://glowarmers.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-co2-really-cause-global-warming.html

Water vapour is a much more dangerous foe than Co2 when it comes to warming the planet. Just the Mount Pinatubo eruption by itself had more of an effect on the climate of the earth in one year that mankind has made in it's whole history both in heating and cooling the planet.
In Short Flint we do not have any real hard evidence to support the proposal that Co2 causes warming, Co2 content of the Earth is just 0.03 percent or there about, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559991/atmosphere.html
The assertion that a gas that comprises such a minuscule amount of the total atmosphere could have such a dramatic effect on the climate even given the historical record really begs for a comprehensive and proven conclusion that we are the cause. I must point out also that the historical record provides a record that does not include the Human species as a scapegoat for such an occurrence http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
and that Co2 lag should also be taken into account.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. They are most emphatically NOT using foregone conclusions to decide what's a fact and what isn't. But it's true that a good predictive model says "If this model is correct, and if you do THIS or look THERE, you should observe THAT." If you discover that, yes indeed, you DO observe THAT, this lends support to your model. It also invariably suggests something else to try. Good models never run short of predictions. Bad models don't either, but the predictions don't pan out. The point Flint is that they are basing their research on the fact they they are looking for AGW IE: If you are looking for this and you use that indicative model of research then you should find that type of indicative evidence and invariably when you base the research on models that indicate a preposition that Co2 increase indicates a finding of AGW then the results of such research conclude a foregone conclusion.
This is in spite of the fact that there is no solid base for the presumption that increased amounts of a minuscule trace gas have a direct cause on the increase in atmospheric temperature. But rather there is a lag increase in such a gas.

Ah, but it does. You must understand principles. Let's say you hold up a brick and drop it. It falls. But does this "localized research" imply that the same thing would be true at the north pole? The theory of gravity says yes, it will be true anywhere within the gravitational field. It's how gravity works. Same with warming phenomena. If additional CO2 causes warming on planetary surfaces, then WHERE on the surface doesn't matter. Just like gravity.
Yet another unrelated analogie Flint, It's a bit like saying if a tree falls on the Planet somewhere does that mean it never fell over at all or just that it fell in that one place that no-one heard it. Does gravity matter if you have a cold Christmas in the North pole and I have a warm one in the south pole? I think not, Gravity has nothing to do with it, I could be freezing my ass of at the South pole in your Northern Summer and it would have FA to do with Gravity. I'm sure it would matter to you M8.

I hope you recognize that weather and climate aren't the same thing. There is probably some relationship, but it's not well defined. None of the models can really predict how global warming will affect weather - whether it will mean more or less rain, whether it will mean more or fewer hurricanes, etc. - and efforts to tie the two together haven't worked very well. So please don't get confused. Predicting climate is possible. Predicting weather is impossible even in principle - it's chaotic.

But you need to be very careful to avoid what I've called the "tobacco fallacy" - the argument that if we do not know everything, then we don't know anything. What we have is a well-supported, solidly predictive model of climate. No model based on "human activities are irrelevant" has yet been constructed, whose predictions aren't all wrong Nor right Flint

I beg to differ on the point that weather and climate are not the same thing Flint, sure enough you can have a climate that is difficult to tie the weather to but it is sort of an oxymoron or paradox to separate the two from each other when it comes to climate change don't you think? We might not know everything but we do know some things and I do not think that it is right to sacrifice a large part of our lively hood to a cause that is unsure or unbiased on it's current stance on climate change.
We may not know everything but at this point in time I am unsure that people should be changing the way that they they run their primary source of income based on an unknown. Don't get me wrong, people should look after their own backyards and take as much action as they can to reduce the use of power and reduce pollution, practice recycling, and reduce their overall impact on the environment, But I still don't think they should be blaming themselves for the current change in global temperature.
THERE IS NO REAL PROOF BETWEEN Co2 LEVELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE.

southerncross
10-05-2008, 11:15 AM
Al Gore rides this emotional wave. He has refused all debate with climate scientists. It is after all, for him, not about truth. For him truth is simply inconvenient.
Thanks for the Info caonacl, Nothing new to me but some new info to those that haven't heard it before. I would love to hear your own opinion rather than references and links M8.

Kassy
10-06-2008, 04:40 PM
Well since you ask nicely:

A quick question for Kassy and Builder Bob, do you guy's reckon that the ice loss is due to Us(mankind) or of a more natural occurrence? I would be interested in your opinions in the thread http://curevents.org/showthread.php?p=25496#post25496 .
You guy's have an interest in the Ice coverage in the North pole and the cause and effects that matter there, I would appreciate your input in the above thread. I hope you will make your opinion known.

First: i'm quite sure we are the major cause in this climate change. Now you ask for cause and effect. Well one simple test for the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is real world observations. Do we see it's effects?

It predicts a global temperature hike which is unpresidented for recent geological times.
We can observe all kinds of real world data on that.

There's a lot of melting going on.

Greenland is losing a lot of ice...see the Greenland Watch.
http://curevents.org/showthread.php?t=492

The Arctic itself is losing a lot of ice. It's not as bad as last year but it's not good and it isn't a recovery either.
http://curevents.org/showthread.php?t=687

Near the arctic there's the Permafrost region but the trouble is that it isn't permanently frozen anymore. Methane is escaping from Siberia and it's also seeping from the seabed.
http://curevents.org/showthread.php?t=790

You can also see it in the worldwide melt of glaciers (thread at old ce) and occasionally huge chunks of ice break of Antarctica (lot's of threads at old CE ~ we'll restart here at the next chunk). As a whole it'll be cold for a while but pieces falling of at the edge hint at that same Global Warming thing.

It does happen at the same time for a reason and the best explanation is us, or rather the fossil fuels we burned. Atmospheric carbon is on a steady rise. That's beyond dispute and the effects it will have are too. More atmospheric carbon = more more warming.

BuilderBob
10-07-2008, 04:55 AM
As requested, a personal opinion. The big thing about CO2 is the fact that it is so good at absorbing infra-red that it blocks itself out of the system. Increasing CO2 concentrations will have almost no measurable impact on climate. What it might do to ocean acidity is another question.

I find the evidence for the sun controlling climate far more compelling than IPCC reports based on outputs from computer models which are fed dodgy data about ice cores and tree rings.

I watch the real world and note the Arctic ice is returning with a rush after the melt from the warm period that ended in ~2002. The predictions of past observations of solar behaviour, NOT computer model predictions, indicate further cooling of the climate over the next few years.

Other world events point to a severe winter here in the UK, such that I am stockpiling wood against the predicted loss of gas and electricity supplies, not least because I may not be able to afford the prices in the near future.

Good luck :beer:

Fiddlerdave
10-07-2008, 07:42 AM
The big thing about CO2 is the fact that it is so good at absorbing infra-red that it blocks itself out of the system. Increasing CO2 concentrations will have almost no measurable impact on climate. What it might do to ocean acidity is another question.I fail to undrtand the conclusion here. How does absorbing more infra-red "block itelf [CO2] out of the system"? CO2 absorbs the infra-red (heat wavelengths) of sunlight that would normally travel all the way to the earth's surface and reflect back out to space. Since the infrared is absorbed by the CO2, warming it, the CO2 vastly increases the effect of sun's warming on the earth's atmosphere, MUCH more than the variation of the sun's output warms the earth and its atmosphere, and the sun's output is closely measured and calculated so we know very well what it is doing.

You don't even need models for comparing the heat effects of CO2 absorbtion vs sun outout, its a straightforward calculation. Its the models that show the increased heat available in the earth's atmosphere has the effect of making the extremes more extreme, such as winters colder and summers hotter and winds faster and rains more intense.

BuilderBob
10-07-2008, 04:19 PM
The quote and graph below might make it clearer as to what I meant. They can be found on page 17. Lots of interesting stuff there.

The Past and Future of Climate (http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/archibald2007.pdf)

Anthropogenic warming is real, it is also miniscule. Using the MODTRAN facility maintained by the University of Chicago, the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide content and increase in average global atmospheric temperature is shown in this graph. The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. The rate of annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has averaged 1.7 ppm. From the current level of 380 ppm, it is projected to rise to 420 ppm by 2030. The projected 40 ppm increase reduces emission from the stratosphere to space from 279.6 watts/m2 to 279.2 watts/m2. Using the temperature response demonstrated by Idso (1998) of 0.1°C per watt/m2, this difference of 0.4 watts/m2 equates to an increase in atmospheric temperature of 0.04°C. Increasing the carbon dioxide content by a further 200 ppm to 620 ppm, projected by 2150, results in a further 0.16°C increase in atmospheric temperature. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 0.1°.

Flint
10-07-2008, 04:21 PM
Population, children, moving house and that aside Flint the difference is that a demographer is not the one saying that We as a population are responsible for the current level of global warmingI had hoped the comparsion would help illustrate the problem with your claim. Long range trends and detailed predictions are different animals.

You can not separate weather and the future forecasts that come with the dire predictions of AGW.But I have no choice, because weather and climate are not the same things at all. The best anyone can say about weather is, it's quite likely that general weather patterns might change as the planet warms up.

Have we really established that Co2 warms the planet Flint?Yes. This is the consensus.

Water vapour is a much more dangerous foe than Co2 when it comes to warming the planet.Nobody questions this, but it is not relevant. Global climate is a gigantic equilibrium, held there somewhat precariously by large feedback forces over which people have no control. This is true. What we're looking at is, in these terms, not much of a change - we're generally talking about maybe 2 degrees Celcius over a century.

In Short Flint we do not have any real hard evidence to support the proposal that Co2 causes warming, Co2 content of the Earth is just 0.03 percent or there aboutYou have been misled, probably deliberately. There is ample evidence that CO2 contributes to global warming. Remember that we are talking about differences here, not absolutes. If CO2 in the atmosphere is increased to .045%, this is still only a tiny percentage of the total amount of atmosphere - but it's a 50% increase in CO2.

The point Flint is that they are basing their research on the fact they they are looking for AGW IE: If you are looking for this and you use that indicative model of research then you should find that type of indicative evidence and invariably when you base the research on models that indicate a preposition that Co2 increase indicates a finding of AGW then the results of such research conclude a foregone conclusion.I tire of explaining why this is an error, every time you make it. A model based on wishful thinking DOES NOT produce consistently accurate predictions. It is entirely possible to build a description of current conditions attributing them all to what we WISH to be true, and the model will perfectly describe what it is based on. But predictions that model makes will FAIL unless the model accurately describes the underlying process.

Yet another unrelated analogie Flint, It's a bit like saying if a tree falls on the Planet somewhereYour resistance to understanding is remarkable. I'll try again. We are talking about how atmospheric composition relates to global temperature. We are talking about general principles. CO2 leads to warming. Everywhere.

I beg to differ on the point that weather and climate are not the same thing Flint, sure enough you can have a climate that is difficult to tie the weather to but it is sort of an oxymoron or paradox to separate the two from each other when it comes to climate change don't you think?No, but when I tried to explain you refused to even think about it. I'll try one more time. Predicting climate is like predicting that water will run downhill. Predicting weather is like predicting exactly which path every little rivulet of water will follow on the surface of that hill. It is simply obtuse to claim that because we can't predict the precise path of every drop, we are clueless about the general principle that water runs downhill.

THERE IS NO REAL PROOF BETWEEN Co2 LEVELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE.The scientific consensus is otherwise. But if the limits of your comprehension are that if you SCREAM falsehoods they become true, it's no wonder you can't understand.

But I still wonder at the intensity of your denial. Why is it so overwhelmingly important to you that the world's climatologists are all wrong? It's not like anyone is going to DO anything about this.

Flint
10-07-2008, 04:27 PM
BuilderBob:

Yes and no. Yes, the effects of CO2 alone are minimal. The most successful models are not linear correlations of temperature with CO2 concentrations, or course. They factor in CO2 with many other trends. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, a much more powerful greenhouse gas. A warmer ocean melts icecaps, decreasing albedo and causing more insolation to convert to heat. Melting glaciers alter oceanic salinity, affecting ocean currents.

In matters of global climate, everything is interdependent on everything in a giant equilibrium. How stable IS that equilibrium? Is it possible to cause any chain reactions, altering climate into a new and different equilibrium? These questions require highly sophisticated models.

Now, could our most predictive models still be wrong, misleading the scientific consensus into error? Yes, this is possible. I keep my fingers crossed that the model IS wrong.

southerncross
10-08-2008, 10:24 AM
Your resistance to understanding is remarkable. I'll try again. We are talking about how atmospheric composition relates to global temperature. We are talking about general principles. CO2 leads to warming. Everywhere.

I am quite capable of comprehension Flint, Maybe the difference is our understanding of atmospheric composition and the alleged cause and effect of AGW. You seem quite comfortable to accept that CO2 is the main culprit of AGW, I on the other hand do not.
You seem comfortable with the Consensus scientific view that this a given or accepted IE:proven Fact, I do not.

The scientific consensus is otherwise. But if the limits of your comprehension are that if you SCREAM falsehoods they become true, it's no wonder you can't understand.


Quote:
Water vapour is a much more dangerous foe than Co2 when it comes to warming the planet.
Nobody questions this, but it is not relevant. Global climate is a gigantic equilibrium, held there somewhat precariously by large feedback forces over which people have no control. This is true. What we're looking at is, in these terms, not much of a change - we're generally talking about maybe 2 degrees Celcius over a century.

2 degrees over a century is your own analysis of this topic? Flint did you read any of the Links I posted in my reply's? Here are some new ones to add to others that dispute the Consensus.

Temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first 50 years of this time period.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has also increased over the last 100 years-- from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest.

Independent data from orbiting satelites have been continuosly measuring global temperatures since the 1970's and indicate that over the last 25 years there has actually been a slight decrease in overall global temperatures.

Assuming that at least part of the source of CO2 additions in the last 50 years is anthropogenic (man-made), the likely scenario is (at the level of additions involved) that CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are an effect of temperature-- not the other way around. The perturbation of CO2 equilibrium has not had the proportional effect on temperature that greenhouse activists predict.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_100_yrs.html

For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.

Historically, glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Changes in both temperatures and CO2 are considerable and generally synchronized, according to data analysis from ice and air samples collected over the last half century from permanent glaciers in Antarctica and other places. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago.

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 370 ppm. Humans may be able to take credit for some of these additions, but not all of them. Earth's plant life will respond to soak up these additions with additional biologic activity, but this takes time. Meanwhile perhaps up to 9% of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today may be attributable to human-related activities like agriculture, industry, and transportation. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

The scientific consensus is otherwise. But if the limits of your comprehension are that if you SCREAM falsehoods they become true, it's no wonder you can't understand.

I do not SCREAM Falsehoods Flint I just question, My background is in Natural Science and Paleontology, while I do not agree with the abuse that modern society inflicts on Nature, I have issues with the mantra of AGW and the links that both sides of Government are backing this issue with the aims of justifying a Carbon Tax on every Man, Woman and Child on the planet as another stream of revenue.
The original Kyoto protocol (the blue print) was flawed from the start with it's hockey stick graph justifying AGW, subsequent versions have just enforced the original biased findings and have not adequately investigated other avenues of limiting man made pollution, as far as they are concerned it is all Carbon.
Carbon as far as Humans go is minute compared to the planet's potential of release, just the thawing of the tundra in Siberia etc .
Two years ago, Schuur and two colleagues authored a paper in the journal Science estimating that 400,000 square miles of northeast Siberian permafrost contained 500 billion metric tons of carbon. For this new paper, scientists combined an extensive database of measurements of carbon content in different types of permafrost soils with the estimated spatial extent of those soils in Russia, Europe, Greenland and North America. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309.htm

This potential Carbon release is in but one part of the world, but all we here is Carbon this Carbon that, What people forget is that Carbon is a very tiny part of the Atmosphere, you argue Flint that the ecology is based on a very fine equilibrium and I agree, I would also argue that Carbon is a very minor part of that equilibrium , and also that the ecology is very hardy and has had to deal with much worse that what humans are throwing at it at the moment .

But I still wonder at the intensity of your denial. Why is it so overwhelmingly important to you that the world's climatologists are all wrong? It's not like anyone is going to DO anything about this.

I am not denying that we don't have any effect Flint, I just don't believe that we are having the effect proposed by the Global Wormers, As I have said there are far worse pollutants than Carbon and if you want to talk about Global warming then water Vapour is a lot worse, Climate change comes and goes, as do species, I have walked on coral reef's and excavated fossils from 15 million years ago that had no Idea of global warming, They are all dead and gone, they had no form of pollution other than Fart's, Only six thousand yr's ago I could of walked another 150 KM from the coast of where I live now, right now there is more land where I live then back then.

I guess I just don't see the Carbon fixation, Or the 2 Degree's Diff? It really is nothing over the actual long term.

dbuk
10-08-2008, 11:08 AM
I guess I just don't see the Carbon fixation, Or the 2 Degree's Diff? It really is nothing over the actual long term.

Just to pick up one point - you are right 2 degrees is not a lot in the long term, but what we are dealing with is tempreture change over a relatively short term. Temperature change over the short term means that the rest of the ecology can't cope with the (relatively) sudden temperature shift and the rapid changes in climate that that brings with it. So we have animal die offs, sudden loss of coastal regions, mass human movement and the destruction of agriculture. The later two brings with it food and water shortages, and the threat of human conflict.

The fixation with Carbon is because the levels of CO2 is the major part of the evironment that is currently being changed. At the beginning of the industrial age in the mid-18th century, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). By the end of the 20th century, carbon dioxide concentrations reached 369 ppm (possibly the highest concentrations in at least 650,000 years), and by the mid-21st century, if fossil fuels continue to be burned at current rates, they are projected to reach 560 ppm—essentially, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in 300 years.

Water Vapour does have a greater effect on temperature but it is the C02 levels that are being changed and it is that change in C02 levels that are causing current temperature rises. And those temperature rises are potentially catastrophic.

Flint
10-08-2008, 11:21 AM
Water Vapour does have a greater effect on temperature but it is the C02 levels that are being changed and it is that change in C02 levels that are causing current temperature rises.As I understand it, there are many feedback processes happening, and this is one of them. Elevated CO2 levels cause a warmer atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

And those temperature rises are potentially catastrophic.I also think this statement needs some qualification. Clearly, the planet has in the geological past been much warmer, but nothing was particularly catastrophic about it. It was simply warmer.

What's of concern here is, people have been overbreeding, and need to be fed and otherwise live an acceptable lifestyle. To accomplish this, we've been squeezing every last iota of benefit we can from our environment (and well beyond, when we consider the serious depletion of oil, edibles from the ocean (which is dying), draining of our freshwater aquifers, and other live-for-today efforts).

And in turn, this means a change in global climate is going to shift things around. Doesn't really matter HOW things get shifted around, what matters is that our current global population and lifestyle relies very heavily on things holding still.

So let's say we do get a few degrees of heating over a century. If (as a mental exercise) we plunked down 7 billion people at that time and gave them a few generations to settle in, then a global cooling to today's temperatures would ALSO be catastrophic. Indeed, a few degrees of global cooling starting today would be very bad news. The closer we are to planetary carrying capacity (you could argue we're already beyond it), the less flexibility we have. We're basically out of it.

Climate change comes and goes, as do species, I have walked on coral reef's and excavated fossils from 15 million years ago that had no Idea of global warming, They are all dead and gone, they had no form of pollution I'm not following this argument. Yes, climate changes over time. Yes, this causes many species to go extinct, and new ones to arise better adapted to changed conditions. If you are content to let our species go extinct, then I should think you really wouldn't CARE about what causes it. But if our species really IS threatened by such a climate change, and if there really IS anything we can do to prevent it, why not make the effort?

southerncross
10-10-2008, 08:09 AM
Just to pick up one point - you are right 2 degrees is not a lot in the long term, but what we are dealing with is tempreture change over a relatively short term. Temperature change over the short term means that the rest of the ecology can't cope with the (relatively) sudden temperature shift and the rapid changes in climate that that brings with it. So we have animal die offs, sudden loss of coastal regions, mass human movement and the destruction of agriculture. The later two brings with it food and water shortages, and the threat of human conflict.

The fixation with Carbon is because the levels of CO2 is the major part of the evironment that is currently being changed. At the beginning of the industrial age in the mid-18th century, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). By the end of the 20th century, carbon dioxide concentrations reached 369 ppm (possibly the highest concentrations in at least 650,000 years), and by the mid-21st century, if fossil fuels continue to be burned at current rates, they are projected to reach 560 ppm—essentially, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in 300 years.


dbuk Ive said it before and I'll say it again, There is no proven link between Co2 levels and Temperature increase.

One of the contentions of true believers in man made global warming is that there is a direct correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 levels. The numbers say something different

(Figure 1) Comparison of Global Mean Temperatures from Climate Research Unit to Estimated Atmospheric CO2 levels from ice core samples.

Year …………….. Temperature …………. CO2 levels (ppm)
1958: ……………….. -0.019 …………………… 314.9
1959: ………………. -0.073 …………………… 315.6
1960: ……………….. -0.118 ………………….. 316.3
1961: ………………. -0.031 …………………… 317.0
1962: ……………….. -0.034 …………………… 317.7
1963: ……………….. -0.009 ………………….. 318.4
1964: ……………….. -0.277 …………………… 319.2
1965: ……………….. -0.210 …………………… 320.0
1966: ……………….. -0.150 …………………. 320.8
1967: ……………… -0.147 …………………… 321.8
1968: ……………… -0.159 …………………… 322.8
1969: ……………….. -0.025 …………………… 323.8
1970: ……………….. -0.073 …………………… 324.8
1971: ………………. -0.181 …………………… 325.8
1972: ………………. -0.066 …………………… 326.9
1973: ………………. +0.058 …………………… 328.0
1974: ……………….. -0.206 …………………… 329.2
1975: ……………….. -0.161 …………………… 330.3
1976: ……………….. -0.240 …………………… 331.5
1977: ………………. +0.006 …………………… 332.6
1978: ……………….. -0.059 …………………… 333.7

Even the promoters of AGW show the current evidence does not stack up, just have a look at the attached chart and have a close look at the actual temperature increase in correlation to the Co2 levels, Although it look's quite a sizable increase on the chart it is on closer inspection only half a degree Celsius, compared to 3-4 degree's historically, There is also the Co2 lag aspect of things that could be taken into account, which came first the chicken or the egg? and even then the lag is only 800-1000 yr's . Human emission's only started a hundred yr's ago.
Who's to say that this slight increase is not part of a natural trend , the earths temperature has risen steadily since the end of the last ice age by about ten deg C.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale

I'm not following this argument. Yes, climate changes over time. Yes, this causes many species to go extinct, and new ones to arise better adapted to changed conditions. If you are content to let our species go extinct, then I should think you really wouldn't CARE about what causes it. But if our species really IS threatened by such a climate change, and if there really IS anything we can do to prevent it, why not make the effort?

A little melodramatic Flint, I doubt very much that the Human species will go extinct any time soon despite the ravages to the Planet that we have caused. My argument that you have trouble understanding Flint is that WE as a species are not responsible for the relatively small increase in the current Global temperature, There is plenty of evidence to the contrary that does not require us as the main fixture in everything.
I would much rather the fund's and energy expended on Carbon research and breaking down peoples resistance to a Carbon tax (via the you are to blame "education" program's) go towards much more urgent issue's , Famine, Education, Medical care, or looking after the older people that built the Countries we now live in to name but a few other more important issues , Rather than spending that money on a gravy train for the Delegates of the IPPC, Do any of them travel economy or stay in Cheap hotels, Bring a packed lunch or allow any contrary evidence into their meetings?

one more before I go
Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html