Why does AGW get Denied so much?

[mike3]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

[BenBurch]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

A big part of it.

Also if you had rights to mine trillions of tons of coal, would you want anything that was talking about reduction in the rate of Carbon emissions? Big Coal's ox is gored by any such program, and they have spent a LOT of money fostering denialism.

And part of it is that the really insane part of the Right thinks this is an issue they can use to beat up on "Treehugger Lefties."

[lomiller]

I maintain the biggest issue is that it’s a problem that requires government action to solve. People who follow political ideologues based on “government being the problem not the solution” are therefore forced to either alter their political views or deny the science.

[cbish]

Most of the objections come from Conservatives. It strikes at some of the core beliefs:

1) Ecomonics. They fear regulation or legistlation will have dire ecomonic consequences and put unnecessary burdon on the free market.

2) Religious. God gave man deminion over the earth. Man cannot destroy the earth.

[Wowbagger]

And, climatology is non-linear. Like all sciences it is non-intuitive. The nature of it all is hard to for typical humans to grasp, especially when we are talking about the long term, and that makes it easy to dismiss and deny.

It took millions of years for any humans to realize they can be detrimental to their own environment. What makes you assume it should be easy for most to accept that?

[BenBurch]

And, climatology is non-linear. Like all sciences it is non-intuitive. The nature of it all is hard to for typical humans to grasp, especially when we are talking about the long term, and that makes it easy to dismiss and deny.

It took millions of years for any humans to realize they can be detrimental to their own environment. What makes you assume it should be easy for most to accept that?

Good point. Though I think that consideration of past consequences paid helps those who are aware of them accept that there will be future consequences.

[FarmallMTA]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

I can't see how that could possibly be the motivation for not buying into the AGW hoax.

Al Gore, by way of disproving your thesis, is a major promoter of the Hoax and a fully leveraged cog in the Big Warming cartel. His personal and professional behavior, accouterments, and possessions are in the top 1% of extravagance and waste and pollution among the entire US private citizenry.

AGW promoters like Gore are among the worst polluters who are allegedly exacerbating the Planet-on-a-Hotplate worries of plebeian suckers who have bought into the charade.

It's called "hypocrisy".

[a_unique_person]

See my sig.

[Ziggurat]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

No. Plenty of proponents not just of the theory of AGW but also of strong measures to curtail it lead quite extravagant lives, so that's clearly no impediment.

[FarmallMTA]

Most of the objections come from Conservatives. It strikes at some of the core beliefs:

1) Ecomonics. They fear regulation or legistlation will have dire ecomonic consequences and put unnecessary burdon on the free market.

2) Religious. God gave man deminion over the earth. Man cannot destroy the earth.

Sort of. We mostly fear the huge waste and tremendously Luddite backsliding of using a completely bogus pretext for destroying modern society.

Equally important is the recognition of the fundamental philosophical flaw driving the AGW crowd, admitted to by hyper-liberal and long time Democrat campaigner Pat Caddell:

Caddell offers an even more harsh assessment of environmentalists. "The whole idea of the environmental movement isn't to clean up the environment, or to do what we need to do or to get jobs," he said. "It is to basically deconstruct capitalism."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33058.html#ixzz0fvijnz8w

This has been the understood objective of AGW "science" and media hyping since it's inception.

The laughably shoddy AGW "science" is so shoddy that there is no way it drives the AGW agenda forward on it's own, of course.

[Floyt]

And, climatology is non-linear. Like all sciences it is non-intuitive. The nature of it all is hard to for typical humans to grasp, especially when we are talking about the long term, and that makes it easy to dismiss and deny.

It took millions of years for any humans to realize they can be detrimental to their own environment. What makes you assume it should be easy for most to accept that?

This; plus, climate science presents an unfortunate combination of what people think they know about (it's the bloody WEATHER, sure I've got an opinion!) with one of the most difficult to communicate facets of the scientific method: the approach of collecting facts to make a series of reasonable conclusions that have an increasing probability of being correct.
No, we don't know the "truth". We are just seeing very clear trends in what conclusions are becoming more and which are becoming less likely to be correct. That takes some effort to grok, and is unfortunately very easy to polemicise against.

[FarmallMTA]

We are just seeing very clear trends in what conclusions are becoming more and which are becoming less likely to be correct. That takes some effort to grok, and is unfortunately very easy to polemicise against.

Phil Jones admits no trend in "warming" since 1995. Phil Jones acknowledges that the Medieval Warming Period couldn't possibly have been caused by man. He acknowledges that that warming was of much greater magnitude than the missing data he can't find for the recent "warming" period.

Phil Jones has come clean. When will you?

[daenku32]

There is a simple test. Just mention Al Gore. If bunch of people jump in to say how fat he is, you are likely looking at a denialist. They still have a Gore Derangement Syndrome, 9+ years after the election he won.

[BenBurch]

There is a simple test. Just mention Al Gore. If bunch of people jump in to say how fat he is, you are likely looking at a denialist. They still have a Gore Derangement Syndrome, 9+ years after the election he won.

:bigclap

[Ziggurat]

They still have a Gore Derangement Syndrome, 9+ years after the election he won.

Sorry, but if you think he won that election, you're the one in denial. That isn't about Gore (who knows he lost the election) or climate change, that's about you.

[Saggy]

I suspect denial exists because it is easy. That is, there is not a simple argument showing AGW, or even GW, is real.

However, maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone give a simple argument that GW is real? Complete with graphs, references to summaries of actual data, etc. It should be not too long and understandable and at least reasonably convincing.

In your own words would be better, but I'd also like to see a link to such an argument.

I guess the argument has to be statistical, so that has to be explicated as well, and all allowances made for the old saying, liars, damned liars, and statisticians.

Note - I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just haven't seen the argument/data (of course I haven't looked as yet).

[schrodingasdawg]

There is a simple test. Just mention Al Gore. If bunch of people jump in to say how fat he is, you are likely looking at a denialist.

Well, that, and it's usually skeptics who bring him up in the first place. I think the better test is to hold your tongue and see if Al Gore is mentioned: the person bringing him up is probably more interested in politics than in science.

They still have a Gore Derangement Syndrome, 9+ years after the election he won.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being facetious. However, I should warn you about making such jokes: there are a lot of skeptics who would take that statement seriously, and will eagerly follow this red herring and drag you along.

[David Wong]

I suspect denial exists because it is easy. That is, there is not a simple argument showing AGW, or even GW, is real.


1. Carbon Dioxide is one of the main elements in the atmosphere in keeping the earth warm. This is not contested - it is one of the reasons the planet is habitable.

2. We have drastically increased the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. This is not contested; we have burned billions of tons of coal and oil, and can measure the results.

3. The Earth started showing signs of warming right exactly at the same time we started adding this extra CO2 to the atmosphere (particularly after 1920 or so). Glaciers and polar ice started melting, temperature records showed all-time highs. This is not contested.


The details are complicated. The basics are straightforward. It's the opposition that has never explained why any of those 3 basic facts are incorrect. What is happening is exactly what we would have expected to happen. The mystery would be if it didn't happen.

[Ambrosia]

AGW promoters like Gore are among the worst polluters who are allegedly exacerbating the Planet-on-a-Hotplate worries of plebeian suckers who have bought into the charade.


and thats called hyperbole.

[Saggy]

1. Carbon Dioxide is one of the main elements in the atmosphere in keeping the earth warm. This is not contested - it is one of the reasons the planet is habitable.

2. We have drastically increased the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. This is not contested; we have burned billions of tons of coal and oil, and can measure the results.

3. The Earth started showing signs of warming right exactly at the same time we started adding this extra CO2 to the atmosphere (particularly after 1920 or so). Glaciers and polar ice started melting, temperature records showed all-time highs. This is not contested.


The details are complicated. The basics are straightforward. It's the opposition that has never explained why any of those 3 basic facts are incorrect. What is happening is exactly what we would have expected to happen. The mystery would be if it didn't happen.

OK, that's good, but seems a little lacking in data. Saying it's not contested doesn't substitute for producing at least some, hopefully convincing, data. It's probably not contested by the people who don't contest it, and contested by those who do.

1. Can we compare CO2 levels now to past levels? What are the results?

2. Here again we need some substantiation. For polar ice, ocean, and air temps.

3. Well, if we have a handle on 1 and 2 above, then 3. should be clear.

Also, saying "it's complicated" is not an explanation, so, the idea is to simplify it to the point where it's understandable, but still supported by and connected to actual data and/or theory.

[macdoc]

1. Can we compare CO2 levels now to past levels? What are the results?

the highest in 15 million years....

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years ...
8 Oct 2009 ... You must go back 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels as high as they are today, Earth scientists report. "The last time carbon
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

Now if you are truly interested in the science PM me and you can learn properly some basic climate science from mainstream sources at what level you are comfortable with.

From appearances you don't know enough basics to even ask the right questions.
Read first, ask later.

:garfield:

[jmarcure]

So how did man cause the Medieval Warm Period?
How about the mini-ice age? Was that cause by the lack of industry?

[BenBurch]

I suspect denial exists because it is easy. That is, there is not a simple argument showing AGW, or even GW, is real.

However, maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone give a simple argument that GW is real? Complete with graphs, references to summaries of actual data, etc. It should be not too long and understandable and at least reasonably convincing.

In your own words would be better, but I'd also like to see a link to such an argument.

I guess the argument has to be statistical, so that has to be explicated as well, and all allowances made for the old saying, liars, damned liars, and statisticians.

Note - I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just haven't seen the argument/data (of course I haven't looked as yet).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

[Carefulplease]

So how did man cause the Medieval Warm Period?
How about the mini-ice age? Was that cause by the lack of industry?

The Maunder minimum (reduced solar irradiance) and a weaker Golf Stream may explain the Little Ice Age.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-ended-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

Man didn't cause (much) climate change prior the industrial revolution. But man certainly did hunt many megafauna species to extinction. How can that be since the dinosaurs disappeared without our help? Simply, reoccurrences of similar events can have different causes.

[Saggy]

the highest in 15 million years....


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

Now if you are truly interested in the science PM me and you can learn properly some basic climate science from mainstream sources at what level you are comfortable with.

From appearances you don't know enough basics to even ask the right questions.
Read first, ask later.

:garfield:

I think that the question in my first post is pretty well posed. And it's clarified in the second. A clear argument, reasonably concise, supported with actual data.

Hmm, I'll add a little more clarification - it should be understandable by an intelligent person with scientific aptitude but having no climate specific training.

If it's possible to make such an argument, give it a try. At least, do the best you can.

If it's not possible to make such an argument IYO, explain why not, as specifically as possible.

Don't think of it as educating me, think of it as educating the world.

[Aussie Thinker]

Saggy.. you got the same old tired link as a reference to why AGW is happening.

They cannot give you a simple explanation why CO2 is the bogeyman because it doesn’t exist.

Good luck on spending 3 weeks ploughing through articles about the doom of the polar bear and malaria destroying the Western world.

I am going to do you a HUGE favour and précis the entire site in one sentence.

The world is warming and we cannot find the USUAL natural cause so CO2 is to blame !

BTW Macdoc.. was the world a bad place15 Million years ago.. seems to me life was flourishing at higher CO2 levels ?

[uruk]

Money and political polarization. AGW has become a political issue because it requires governmental regulation, policies to remediate or ameliorate the issue, and it involves the products or output of large corporations. Big business has the money to hire an army of lobbiests and spindoctors to protect thier interests.

Public ignorance and the growing anti-science trend plays in to the hands of those whose interests are affected by the policies meant to deal with AGW.

Add sprinkle of scientific uncertainty, a spoon full of a very complex not-yet-completely understood meterological/ecological system, shake liberally with human error and a dash of human incompetance. And you get AGW denial.

[a_unique_person]

Simply, reoccurrences of similar events can have different causes.

Ya think :)? No, too hard a concept to understand.

[Molinaro]

BTW Macdoc.. was the world a bad place15 Million years ago.. seems to me life was flourishing at higher CO2 levels ?

What does life flourishing have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that AGW proponents are in any way saying life is in danger of no longer flourishing?

[Haig]

Why does AGW get Denied so much?

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

Slightly loaded question in my view, but to answer it anyway. No, I think it's because many see that the science isn't settled yet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mistakes and the climategate saga have added to their numbers.

"No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm



So how did man cause the Medieval Warm Period?
How about the mini-ice age? Was that cause by the lack of industry?

Good points and that suggests to me that there may be other factors: the Sun perhaps?

[Carefulplease]

The world is warming and we cannot find the USUAL natural cause so CO2 is to blame !

BTW Macdoc.. was the world a bad place15 Million years ago.. seems to me life was flourishing at higher CO2 levels ?

There were no ice caps back then. The world was 3-6C warmer and sea levels were 30 - 40 meters higher than today.

http://suvratk.blogspot.com/2009/10/20-million-year-history-of-atmospheric.html

Regarding CO2 potency as a greenhouse gas both in the laboratory and in the atmosphere, you have been offered the scientific evidence you had been asking for and you have remained silent about it.

[Carefulplease]

Good points and that suggests to me that there may be other factors: the Sun perhaps?

The Sun's influence always has been accounted for by climate scientists. The claim that CO2 is the only driver of recent (or past) climate change is a strawman. The steady increase in solar irradiance accounts in part for the 20th century warming until 1960. Since then, solar irradiance has been on a downward trend while temperatures have increased steadily. Why?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html

[a_unique_person]

What does life flourishing have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that AGW proponents are in any way saying life is in danger of no longer flourishing?

Life will go on, so will the rocks. The question of how species that have adapted to a niche will cope is another matter. Climate is one of the key factors for most species.

[Haig]

The Sun's influence always has been accounted for by climate scientists. The claim that CO2 is the only driver of recent (or past) climate change is a strawman. The steady increase in solar irradiance accounts in part for the 20th century warming until 1960. Since then, solar irradiance has been on a downward trend while temperatures have increased steadily. Why?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html

Why? It's because the Sun's solar radiation (sunshine) is relatively steady and that's what they have been measuring but the Sun's output of particles (solar wind) and magnetic effects (flares, CME , etc) varies enormously. The Sun is just coming out of a relatively inactive period (sunspot minimum) and has now started Sunspot Cycle 24. That's what may be affecting the Earths climate.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't see how that could possibly be the motivation for not buying into the AGW hoax.

Al Gore, by way of disproving your thesis, is a major promoter of the Hoax and a fully leveraged cog in the Big Warming cartel. His personal and professional behavior, accouterments, and possessions are in the top 1% of extravagance and waste and pollution among the entire US private citizenry.

AGW promoters like Gore are among the worst polluters who are allegedly exacerbating the Planet-on-a-Hotplate worries of plebeian suckers who have bought into the charade.

It's called "hypocrisy".Perfect example of what I was going to say: People's political filters have a tremendous effect on how they screen in and screen out the evidence they encounter.

Another major factor was the millions of dollars Exxon and other Big Oil companies poured into an anti-science campaign.

[ben m]

Why? It's because the Sun's solar radiation (sunshine) is relatively steady and that's what they have been measuring but the Sun's output of particles (solar wind) and magnetic effects (flares, CME , etc) varies enormously.

Yes---the energy the Earth receives from solar flares varies. It varies from "ridiculously negligible" to "completely negligible". I gave you the numbers already.

Seriously, if you're going to pick random astrophysical effects and guess that they cause warming, why stop with the Sun? There's a volcano on Io that isn't in climate models. Neptune's and Pluto's orbits crossed a decade or two ago, maybe that causes warming. Maybe global warming is happening because Uranus is in in Sagittarius and square with Virgo (or whatever).

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Caddell offers an even more harsh assessment of environmentalists. "The whole idea of the environmental movement isn't to clean up the environment, or to do what we need to do or to get jobs," he said. "It is to basically deconstruct capitalism." ...Your bizarre paranoia about the left, the environmentalists, the IPCC, the majority of climate scientists, and those of us who have drawn a conclusion from the scientific evidence we have reviewed which differs from your conclusion, is really really really over the top here.

[mhaze]

Why does AGW get Denied so much?



Slightly loaded question in my view, but to answer it anyway. No, I think it's because many see that the science isn't settled yet. ....Circular pretzelian Warmer logic aside, I serve notice that the science is settled, some of the data is fried, the dog ate the rest, Global warming scrambled believers ' brains, and Cartoon Dioxide is the Evil One only in graphic novels.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, but if you think he won that election, you're the one in denial. That isn't about Gore (who knows he lost the election) or climate change, that's about you.Gore won, unless you think the Supreme Court is legitimately tasked with deciding elections in this country.

[thaiboxerken]

It's based on a distrust of liberals, via scientists. If the scientists say it's true, it must be a conspiracy by the evil liberals. I'd bet that most of the AGW deniers happen to be creationists as well.

[casebro]

Gore won, unless you think the Supreme Court is legitimately tasked with deciding elections in this country.

Gee. I must be getting old. My recollection is that the SCOTUS said that the dems can't just keep re-counting until they win.

[thaiboxerken]

Gee. I must be getting old. My recollection is that the SCOTUS said that the dems can't just keep re-counting until they win.

Nah, they said that the dems can't recount in the states where it matters.

[Haig]

Yes---the energy the Earth receives from solar flares varies. It varies from "ridiculously negligible" to "completely negligible". I gave you the numbers already.

Seriously, if you're going to pick random astrophysical effects and guess that they cause warming, why stop with the Sun? There's a volcano on Io that isn't in climate models. Neptune's and Pluto's orbits crossed a decade or two ago, maybe that causes warming. Maybe global warming is happening because Uranus is in in Sagittarius and square with Virgo (or whatever).

I think you are wrong.

The 93 million mile long magnetic ropes that link the Sun and Earth seem to be a major conduit for this energy. That together with the solar wind whizzing past the planet at a million miles an hour being affected by these ropes towards the magnetosphere. That's my understanding of a possible mechanism that could affect our climate.

Here's what NASA have found and say:

Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth

Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."

(snip)

Now that Cluster and THEMIS have directly sampled FTEs, theorists can use those measurements to simulate FTEs in their computers and predict how they might behave. Space physicist Jimmy Raeder of the University of New Hampshire presented one such simulation at the Workshop. He told his colleagues that the cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth's equator and then roll over Earth's winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the north pole; in July they roll over the south pole.

Sibeck believes this is happening twice as often as previously thought. "I think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive." Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial latitudes when the IMF tips south; passive FTEs form at higher latitudes when the IMF tips north.) Sibeck has calculated the properties of passive FTEs and he is encouraging his colleagues to hunt for signs of them in data from THEMIS and Cluster.

"Passive FTEs may not be very important, but until we know more about them we can't be sure."

There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil?

"We're doing some heavy thinking about this at the Workshop," says Sibeck.
Meanwhile, high above your head, a new portal is opening, connecting your planet to the sun.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

[Carefulplease]

Gee. I must be getting old. My recollection is that the SCOTUS said that the dems can't just keep re-counting until they win.

Although I am a Canadian, I was rooting for Gore back then. Still, I remember that is was claimed that Al Gore, in addition to being indisputably the inventor of the Internet, also had the term "algorithm" named after him. That's a procedure that involves the iterative repetition of a calculation until the desired result is obtained. It thought this was rather funny.

[MattusMaximus]

To address the OP:

The biggest hurdle for AGW science is that it is a horribly complex issue, so much so that it is extraordinarily difficult for the average person to really wrap their head around it. And that breeds a lot of ignorance.

Some of it is from ideologues who take advantage of that ignorance to push their agenda.

[ImaginalDisc]

I tink part of the problem is that the certainty and uncertainty itself is complex.

1) The climate changes. We have good geological, ice core, pollen, and other records of this over Earth's history. No one denies this (unless they live in a Creationist bubble.)

2) Climate changes have had various causes, including volcanic actvivty, the development of photosynthesis, comets ruining everything for dinosaurs, the sun farting, etc. Also, this is undeniable.

3) The mean global temperature is influenced by greenhouse gases, which include methane and carbon dioxide, which we contribute to. Also undeniable.

4) Our climate is gradually changing right now. Undeniable.

5? But that's where complete consensus ends and prediction begins, which is inherently uncertain. No one knows exactly what the consequences will be, whether or not your home town will be inundated by the sea, recieve more rain, less rain, more pine bettles, less, more termite activity, less, whether this or that ice pack will vanish all become murky to some degree.

This is where people can either become confused about the uncertainty or cynically exploit and magnify it. Just because no one can predict exactly what will happen in every detail that doesn't change the fact that we're putting out vast quantities of greenhouse gases the likes of which haven't been seen since before primates were bipeds and that things are going to get a little steamier, on average.

Denying global warming on the grounds that the consequences are uncertain is exactly like denying that a bullet is flying toward you because you can't get a consensus from doctors about whether or not it will kill you.

[Prometheus]

Why can't denialists get it through their heads that nobody who's interested in the science gives a crap about Al Gore, or anything he says or does?

And for the record, Gore received more votes than Bush--even in Florida; in so doing he re-exposed a known flaw in our electoral system. But he did not win the election, according to the rules. OTOH, SCOTUS just shamed and embarrassed themselves by stepping in the way they did. Legally, once the Florida popular vote was in doubt, the disposition of the state's electoral votes was the prerogative of the state legislature--which was Republican controlled, and would have given the election to Bush anyway.

Anyway, in answer to the OP, it's about 90% money/politics and 10% misunderstanding of how science works. Education will never solve this problem.

[Floyt]

Anyway, in answer to the OP, it's about 90% money/politics and 10% misunderstanding of how science works. Education will never solve this problem.

You reckon? It's not as if the shrug-don't-really-care students I meet on a daily basis, or the bus driver who regaled me with his view that it's all a big conspiracy, are being paid to do so, or are incapable of understanding the issue. If they had assimilated more salient facts and less biased factoids, I daresay they'd get it. Of course once you've turned denial into a personal crusade that your emotional wellbeing hinges on, like mhaze apparently, it's probably too late, but that's not the average denier. The average denier is just uninformed.

[Malerin]

No. Plenty of proponents not just of the theory of AGW but also of strong measures to curtail it lead quite extravagant lives, so that's clearly no impediment.

I live in a thousand sq. ft house and drive a POS 1999 Saturn that still gets 38 M.P.G. I've flown twice in my life. My carbon footprint is almost non-existent. But I'm not convinced that AGW is true.

I'm also very liberal. Go figure.

[Malerin]

Add sprinkle of scientific uncertainty, a spoon full of a very complex not-yet-completely understood meterological/ecological system, shake liberally with human error and a dash of human incompetance. And you get AGW denial.

I know where you got that from ^^^ :p

[Andrew Wiggin]

Lately I've been blaming this on the Dunning-Kruger effect, something I knew intuitively but didn't know till recently had an actual name and studies rigorously supporting it.

Basically, Dunning and Kruger were psychologists who found that when one rates a group of folks competence and knowlege in a certain subject, there's an odd anomaly. Given a suitable level of ignorance of a subject, a person will have no basis to rate their competence, but not knowing the depth of the subject and knowing that they know SOMETHING about it, they rate their competence as very very high. Someone at the other end of the competence and knowlege spectrum, with much more knowlege, including the knowlege of how complicated and broad the subject is, will accurately rate their competence and, knowing that there's an awful lot to know, and that they know a large but not complete amount of it, will rate their competence as rather low.

blunt summary: the more ignorant someone is, the more they think their opinion matters, and the more they think their opinion trumps those who actually know.

Climatology is a complicated subject, and one that doesn't have a lot of straightforward linear relationships. It's a huge subject, and an evolving science. An expert in the subject will be aware of that, and know how much more work is still to be done before we completely understand climate. The layman with no knowlege except what they get from whatever pundit is currently shouting the loudest, thinks they get it, and since the official position differs from the ignorant position, it must be an evil conspiracy.

Another element I see is that the same folks who are denying the science are mostly focused on the political aspects.

This is an issue that is global, and will effect everyone on the planet. We still have a tribal government structure, and we're still hardwired to think of our own little tribe as the greatest ever, and all other tribes as at least potential if not actual enemies. This is an issue of resources. The rich will have to use less, there will have to be better distribution of resources, we'll have to help those less fortunate, we'll have to compromise with people of other cultures, languages, and beliefs. This is an issue that makes it painfully obvious that we need to dig deep inside our predjudices and our fears and get over tribalism as soon as we can. This is going to require an unified planetary government, and the sooner we can do that the better. You want to hear a bunch of rabid posturing and conspiricies? Call it the 'new world order' and stand back...

A

[Prometheus]

You reckon? It's not as if the shrug-don't-really-care students I meet on a daily basis, or the bus driver who regaled me with his view that it's all a big conspiracy, are being paid to do so, or are incapable of understanding the issue. If they had assimilated more salient facts and less biased factoids, I daresay they'd get it. Of course once you've turned denial into a personal crusade that your emotional wellbeing hinges on, like mhaze apparently, it's probably too late, but that's not the average denier. The average denier is just uninformed.

Point taken. I normally don't categorize the merely uninformed bus driver with an opinion type as a "denialist." There is a difference between saying, "It does not exist," and, "I don't know, but I doubt it." In my experience, the uninformed guy on the street is typically just as uninformed about the deniers' main arguments also.

[Floyt]

Point. I guess I'm thinking more of the Dunning-Kruger victims outlined by Andrew Wiggins above.

[BenBurch]

Gee. I must be getting old. My recollection is that the SCOTUS said that the dems can't just keep re-counting until they win.

No, actually, Bush v Gore says they can't count votes because doing so might damage Mr. Bush.

http://www.daveross.com/marklevine.html

[Carefulplease]

You reckon? It's not as if the shrug-don't-really-care students I meet on a daily basis, or the bus driver who regaled me with his view that it's all a big conspiracy, are being paid to do so, or are incapable of understanding the issue.

This may be the root of the problem. The more AWG conscious people become the more they want to reduce their carbon footprints. The more they want to reduce their carbon footprints the more they use public transportation. The more they use public transportation the more exposed they become to bus drivers. The more they talk to bus drivers the more exposed they become to AWG conspiracy theories. So they cease to use public transportation. That's an unbreakable vicious circle.

[BenBurch]

This may be the root of the problem. The more AWG conscious people become the more they want to reduce their carbon footprints. The more they want to reduce their carbon footprints the more they use public transportation. The more they use public transportation the more exposed they become to bus drivers. The more they talk to bus drivers the more exposed they become with AWG conspiracy theories. So they cease to use public transportation. That's an unbreakable vicious circle.

Enter The Bicycle, stage right.

[Safe-Keeper]

There is a simple test. Just mention Al Gore. If bunch of people jump in to say how fat he is, you are likely looking at a denialist. :D

I so want this as my sig! So true - except I'd rephrase it to something like "Just mention AGW. If someone starts ranting about Al Gore, you are likely looking at a denialist". I'm glad it's only AGW that's debated in this way. Imagine if someone did the same thing for politics - every time a thread was started on any political topic, it was instantly derailed into a discussion on Michael Moore or Sarah Palin.

Post #1: You know, I'm not sure if this new stimulus plan is a good idea, because {well-written post with many good points follows}

Post #2: SARAH PALIN IS DUMB!1!!1
:cue discussion on SP until post 39, at which point everyone has forgotten the OP and starts discussing polar bears and glaciers:

ETA2:
More on topic, I think many deny AGW because it sounds alarmist to them. I feel the same way about several issues where extremists/doomsayers are the loudest voice: abortion, several feminist issues, the idea that Muslims are taking over Europe, the list goes on. An exotic dance place just opened in my town, and the opponents that get air time in the media are, surprise, surprise, the fanatics who hardly have any good arguments to bring to the table, merely threats of harrassement and picketing and ultra-feminist rhetoric. This kind of behaviour converts no one. Likewise with the "Muslim takeover of Europe" idea. Likewise with genetically modified foods. Likewise with many other ideas where the rational voices are drowned out by the hysterics - you don't want to start seriously researching a topic once you start associating it with fanatics.

Likewise, when Al Gore goes on stage showing digital imagery of millions of square kilometres drowned by rising sea levels from melting Greenland ice, and scientists then point out that this can't happen for at least 3000 years... people who are already predisposed to not believe aren't exactly helped towards our side.

[Warmer1]

I think people deny AGW due to the fear of having to make changes. People have comfort zones plain and simple.

People don't want to hear that things are not OK and that they may have to make lifestyle changes. There is an assumption in America that the US is all powerful and we can just make any changes needed whenever we feel like it when things really need to be fixed.

I just read that a resolution was passed in Utah denying that global warming was a proven fact. When I drive through Utah the AM radio station programs tell people not to worry about global warming because there are polar bear populations in eastern Canada that are growing in numbers etc. etc. What weak people would not want to hear that? People on this forum are obviously outgoing and probably don't understand what it is like to be someone that just wants to be left alone and not hear about any problems. Many people don't want to hear that something is wrong and will vote for people that make them feel safe.

As a previous poster mentioned many people just cannot grasp the science.

I just sent off a huge email today about how corrupt the CEI is as they are paid corporate shills, and they are allowed to have equal air time with a valid scientist on Fox News. I need more posts before I can add links but soon I will do a full dislosure about Myron Ebell. Most people lack the intelligence to research people like Myron Ebell who is the environmental spokesperson for CEI. Check out Myron Ebell on Sourcewatch, Wikipedia and talking climategate on Fox News.

I'll cut this short as I need more posts to be able to post links.

[Warmer1]

My hat is off to many of you that spend your valuable time explaining AGW to others that don't understand it.

He he he.... another post closer to adding links to support my statements.

[Warmer1]

Since I brought up the subject of CEI's disgusting tactics you can Google Sourcewatch and look up CEI battling the FDA and EPA regarding second hand smoke legislation. As long as CEI is getting paid money from Phillip Morris they are OK with people dying of cancer.

[Dancing David]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

I think it is more complex, but that is certainly part of it. The main issues as i see them in the US press:

1. Economic benefit. There are those who benefit fom deny-ing, they use the same tactics that were started by the tobacco companies and asbestos companies.

2. Political benefit. There are those who can use ths as a campaign and rally issue on both sides.

3. Infotainment issue. this is great and strange press for the people who run the infotainment industry. You can make a witty sound byte that is an appeal on so many levels. Sometimes this also serves 1 and 2.

Now running a distant fourth:

4. The actual issues are complex and difficult for someone without a little patience, understanding of science and tolerance for boredom to wade through. (this is true of so mych scinec, text books are a great sleep aide. My father claims he uses anothroplogy grad papers to go to sleep.)

[Dancing David]

Welcome Warmer1 !

[Warmer1]

Why does AGW get denied so much?

Let's add in the weak minded that get fooled by the Lord of all shills- Lord Moncton!

How about the video of Lord Moncton that was posted last fall stating that Obama was going to sign away U.S. sovereignty at the climate conference in Copenhagen. Lord Moncton also stated in the video that U.S. wealth would be transferred to poor countries as a result, and that the communists that left Eastern Europe came to the U.S. and joined environmental organizations to take over.

Someone very close to me sent me the video and that was sent to her by a preacher. Not mentally strong people though.

Consider the brilliant tactics used by Lord Moncton. He must have thought, how can we make people fear and work against the climate treaty in Copenhagen? I know, tell them that their country will be given away, their money will be given away, and that communists will take over. Watch the video and see for yourself.

I can't believe that Lord Moncton hasn't been hung out to dry already on the JREF, unless I have missed it, and you can add in the Minnesota Majority into the irrelevant pile as well for supporting him.

Soemone very near and dear to me couldn't grasp this even when I explained it, so people seem to get afraid and are not able to change their minds once they have been initially mislead.

Lord Moncton's ideas need to be thoroughly laid to rest in the irrelevant corporate shill dog turd pile IMHO. Unfortunately weak people allow themselves to be spoon-fed LM's nonsense.

How am I doing for a newbie?

[Dancing David]

PEOPLE this is SMT please if you are going to argue Politics, take it to the Politics section. There are many posts that are not relevant to the OP.

(I am saying this because I have decided yesterday ,before I read this thread that I need to take a hiatus from the Politics forum. :D )

[Andrew Wiggin]

My hat is off to many of you that spend your valuable time explaining AGW to others that don't understand it.

He he he.... another post closer to adding links to support my statements.
I don't bother explaining it to the rabid deniers anymore. Eventually either they'll stop obstructing the process because it'll become too obvious for them to ignore regardless of what the pundits say, they'll get steamrollered over by the wheels of progress and become as irrelevant as the flat-earthers, or they'll succeed and civilization as we know it will end. I don't think the third option is likely because these are self-identified do-nothings. They shout a lot but they're not the ones doing the work, and that means they're relativly powerless, just loud, irritating and ignorant. Think of a mosquito, on the wrong side of your fly-netting some quiet, hot tropical night. It isn't going to drain more blood than you can afford to lose, but damn if that buzzing doesn't irritate the living daylights out of you.

A

[Safe-Keeper]

He he he.... another post closer to adding links to support my statements.
Just reply to some threads in the forum community and the humor section, and you'll get there in no time.

[Belz...]

Saggy.. you got the same old tired link as a reference to why AGW is happening.

They cannot give you a simple explanation why CO2 is the bogeyman because it doesn’t exist.

Tell that to Venus.

[MattusMaximus]

You reckon? It's not as if the shrug-don't-really-care students I meet on a daily basis, or the bus driver who regaled me with his view that it's all a big conspiracy, are being paid to do so, or are incapable of understanding the issue. If they had assimilated more salient facts and less biased factoids, I daresay they'd get it. Of course once you've turned denial into a personal crusade that your emotional wellbeing hinges on, like mhaze apparently, it's probably too late, but that's not the average denier. The average denier is just uninformed.

Exactly. Hardcore ideologues you cannot reach, but most other people you can... IF you take the right approach to the issue with them. It's much like the issue of evolution education: if you continually reinforce that it is an issue about science and not religious belief, more people will be receptive to learning about evolutionary science.

Likewise, if you take the issue of climate change in terms of the science, and not in terms of politics, more people who are ignorant will be receptive to being educated on the matter.

Knee-jerk "only-conservative-and-Republican-douchebags-deny-GW" type arguments are precisely the wrong way to go about educating the public, folks. That buys into the political framing of the argument that the hardcore ideologues want.

[MattusMaximus]

I don't bother explaining it to the rabid deniers anymore. Eventually either they'll stop obstructing the process because it'll become too obvious for them to ignore regardless of what the pundits say, they'll get steamrollered over by the wheels of progress and become as irrelevant as the flat-earthers, or they'll succeed and civilization as we know it will end. I don't think the third option is likely because these are self-identified do-nothings. They shout a lot but they're not the ones doing the work, and that means they're relativly powerless, just loud, irritating and ignorant. Think of a mosquito, on the wrong side of your fly-netting some quiet, hot tropical night. It isn't going to drain more blood than you can afford to lose, but damn if that buzzing doesn't irritate the living daylights out of you.

A

But it is worth responding to their arguments, because there are many lurkers here who are attempting to make up their minds on the issue. That said...

Skeptical Science: Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism (http://skepticalscience.com/)

[Saggy]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Thanks, a good link.

The GW graph below pretty much convinces me that GW is real. It would be interesting to see a longer time frame. The uncertainty window is good. The one number for average global yearly temperature .... I'd like to see how that's arrived at. I wonder is the graph contested.

Given an increase in GW roughly matching industrial development, and a well understood mechanism whereby CO2 creates GW, I'd be pretty much convinced not that CO2 is definitely the culprit, but that, with no other likely understood cause, something should be done about it to err on the safe side. I'll include another graph showing CO2 emissions that is indicative.

Is anything proved by the argument in this post? No, but it puts me where I was before the latest Phil Jones(?) brouhaha and an article from the left by Alexander Cockburn debunking GW .... i.e., believin it.
GW -

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/fig/FAQ-3.1_Fig-1.png

CO2 emissions -

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/globalco2emission.gif

[Safe-Keeper]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/globalco2emission.gif
But it's not as if there are only 300 million Americans, and 800 million Europeans and one billion Chinese and Indians.

[Furcifer]

Someone pointed to the alarmist nature of the AGW message being the reason. I tend to agree. It was true for me 15 years ago and after reading these threads of the last few days I think little has changed since then.

It also seems a little self serving as well. It's as if the warmers want to cement their place in history saving the planet from humankind. "My generation made and then fixed the biggest problem in the history of the planet". It seems to me the issue of what to do isn't as important as getting people to admit it's a huge issue. It reminds me of two kids fighting on the playground. The warmers have the deniers in a headlock shouting "Say it! Say-It's getting warmer and it's all my fault. Just admit it and I'll let you go". Of course the deniers have dug themselves in and aren't admitting anything.

Nobody likes being stuck in a headlock.

[bokonon]

The steady increase in solar irradiance accounts in part for the 20th century warming until 1960. Since then, solar irradiance has been on a downward trend while temperatures have increased steadily. Why?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html
The graph at that link shows irradiance rising from 1940 to 1960, while temperatures were falling. Why?

[Carefulplease]

The graph at that link shows irradiance rising from 1940 to 1960, while temperatures were falling. Why?

This falling temperature trend is probably spurious. There was a significant warming bias in sea temperature measurements performed during the second war that's only recently been documented. That's when US ships relayed the UK and used a different measurement method. So, whenever you extrapolate a trend to or from this particular time frame (WWII), you also skew the trend.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html

Also, the increase in net forcings (GHG, aerosols, solar irradiance, etc.) from 1940-1960 (0.2W/mˆ2) is very much smaller than is has been for any 20-year period ever since. E.g.:

1960 to 1980: +0.5W/mˆ2
1980 to 2000: +0.8W/mˆ2

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/NetF.txt

[bokonon]

Knee-jerk "only-conservative-and-Republican-douchebags-deny-GW" type arguments are precisely the wrong way to go about educating the public, folks. That buys into the political framing of the argument that the hardcore ideologues want.
Yup.

I voted for Gore. On most issues, my position would be considered the liberal one. I favor keeping abortion legal, legalizing gay marriage, and a "public option" in health care.

I think there are good reasons to switch to energy sources other than fossil fuels, and to limit emissions from combustion and other chemical processes.

I'm just not convinced that global warming is half the problem it's made out to be, and as one other poster said, it has an alarmist tone that I've heard before (from "the population bomb" to the coming ice age to Y2K) that's off-putting.

Having people use "rabid Republican ideologue" as a proxy for my position (usually as a way to AVOID discussing the science that's supposedly the focus of this forum) is about as likely to convince me as praying about it.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm sure the politicians have overstated the problem of global warming. However, they have to. If politicians said "we need to start change now, else the tiny problem we have now may grow to be a moderate problem" no one would care. Small problems are shrugged off as insignificant to the general public. Our alarmist population needs things to be overblown if they are going to make any change.

[Andrew Wiggin]

It also seems a little self serving as well. It's as if the warmers want to cement their place in history saving the planet from humankind. "My generation made and then fixed the biggest problem in the history of the planet". It seems to me the issue of what to do isn't as important as getting people to admit it's a huge issue.

Project much? This statement implies that you can't understand altruism without suspecting an ulterior motive. Honestly, how many actual scientists working on this problem do you know by name, without an internet search? Al Gore? He's not a scientist, so don't even bother listing him.

If you answer more than three or four, you're either in the field or you're making it up. If we were in this for the fame, don't you think the numbers would be higher?

Have you considered that the folks actually working on this problem, with the actual data, might actually see something important coming? The hype is a side effect of trying to get everyone to pull together and give up their tribalistic, insular, ignorant attitudes while there's still something that can be done.

As for me, I've said before that the deniers can burn for all I care, but I'm still going to do everything I can. That doesn't mean you'll ever even know my name, so the burden of proof is on you to show I'm in this for the fame.

A

[ben m]

It also seems a little self serving as well. It's as if the warmers want to cement their place in history saving the planet from humankind. "My generation made and then fixed the biggest problem in the history of the planet".

"Those people telling me not to dump mercury into the public water supplies are so sanctimonious I think they're doing it just for the glory."

"It's as if the ozoners want to cement their place in history. 'my generation realized it was damaging the ozone layer but managed to fix it.'"

"Wasn't it self-serving of the FDA to announce that Chinese toothpaste shipments were toxic? They invented a problem and claimed credit for fixing it."

You've just invented an excuse for ignoring any problem whatsoever, haven't you?

[Captain.Sassy]

Big Warming cartel

lol

[soylent]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?

No.

Climate change is about the biggest imaginable "tragedy of the commons" problem and energy is involved in almost every aspect of the economy. Various people on the far left found it a politically expedient to suggest crazy solutions(of the 'central planning and socialism didn't produce a higher standard of living, but now we really have to have it to protect the environment from the excesses of capitalism'-kind).

Rather than try and mount a reply(e.g. just internalize the cost of carbon by phasing in a direct tax on carbon; let the market solve it rather than try to resurrect central planning and try to pick winners and losers) many on the right have taken the lazy approach and just flat deny there's a problem.

One of the biggest ironies in the whole thing is that many on the left oppose nuclear power but think that we really need to get serious about global warming, while many on the right embrace nuclear power but don't think there's any reason to limit carbon emissions.

[Furcifer]

Project much? This statement implies that you can't understand altruism without suspecting an ulterior motive. Honestly, how many actual scientists working on this problem do you know by name, without an internet search? Al Gore? He's not a scientist, so don't even bother listing him.

If you answer more than three or four, you're either in the field or you're making it up. If we were in this for the fame, don't you think the numbers would be higher?

Have you considered that the folks actually working on this problem, with the actual data, might actually see something important coming? The hype is a side effect of trying to get everyone to pull together and give up their tribalistic, insular, ignorant attitudes while there's still something that can be done.

As for me, I've said before that the deniers can burn for all I care, but I'm still going to do everything I can. That doesn't mean you'll ever even know my name, so the burden of proof is on you to show I'm in this for the fame.

A

You seem to be unable to seperate global warming from doing something to reduce carbon. I know I produce it and I know I have to reduce it. It's as simple as that for me. Why do I need to be convinced beyond the simple fact that if I didn't make it it wouldn't be there? Whether or not global warming is happening due to man made CO2 seems irrelevant to the issue of reducing it.

[Furcifer]

"Those people telling me not to dump mercury into the public water supplies are so sanctimonious I think they're doing it just for the glory."

"It's as if the ozoners want to cement their place in history. 'my generation realized it was damaging the ozone layer but managed to fix it.'"

"Wasn't it self-serving of the FDA to announce that Chinese toothpaste shipments were toxic? They invented a problem and claimed credit for fixing it."

You've just invented an excuse for ignoring any problem whatsoever, haven't you?

Wah? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why would someone ignore the issue of reducing carbon because Al Gore is a self serving sanctimonious alarmist? Sorry if I don't need a cause to warrant reducing my carbon footprint on this planet unlike some people :rolleyes:

[Slimething]

Various people on the far left found it a politically expedient to suggest crazy solutions(of the 'central planning and socialism didn't produce a higher standard of living, but now we really have to have it to protect the environment from the excesses of capitalism'-kind).

Unfortunately a little-recognized cause for disbelieving AGW in toto is that the more strident voices are owned by the same people who have predicted other industrially-caused apocalypses that failed. The average person (and even the non-average ones) have been hit over the head with doomsday stories since they were kids only to see that nothing has changed.

The worst mistake AGW scientists have made is allowing non-scientists to take center stage. They should have not only done a better job of teaching the unconvinced but also loudly denounced the exaggerators. The problem is not scientific. The foundation science of AGW is not complex but predicting its rate and magnitude on a global basis is. The need is for presentation of a calm and reasoned proposal toward mitigation. I've heard none so far although the IPCC has presented such..very quietly, though.

[macdoc]

Whether or not global warming is happening due to man made CO2 seems irrelevant to the issue of reducing it. :boggled:
:con2: :garfield:

[BenBurch]

... Whether or not global warming is happening due to man made CO2 seems irrelevant to the issue of reducing it.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=392&pictureid=2429

[Furcifer]

I'm sorry but reducing carbon output because of global warming makes about as much sense as increasing carbon output because of global cooling.

[Ambrosia]

I'm sorry but reducing carbon output because of global warming makes about as much sense as increasing carbon output because of global cooling.

Really?

Our entire civilisation is dependant upon energy. We *need* energy and right now we get most of it from burning things. A whole bunch of people have got very wealthy and very powerful because they control how we get the energy we need, and they're not going to want anything to change in that regard anytime soon absent some really really good reasons.

People with lots of power and money get to buy influence, have a lot of lobbying power, and thus say in the political process and can and do fund media and "scientists" to spin their point of view to the rest of us.

When I first started postng at JREF I was not convinced about AGW. It's beyond obvious that the planet is warming, but I figured that the climate is complex and that the issue was being overhyped.

Then I got involved with a couple of AGW threads here and went and read more detail on climate science. When you take the time to do that you discover that yes the science is in, and while nothing is proven it's very very likely (90+%) that our rabid burning of fuels to generate energy is the biggest cause of the present warming. For it not to be there must be some other warming mechanism as yet unknown.

If you extend the warming trend a couple of decades it's not hard to surmise that the planets present climate patterns are going to be completely rewritten. Areas that we use now to grow lots of food are going to move. Not too big a problem in 1st world countries where we have higher technology, but it's going to make 3rd world famines more frequent and more devastating. Water supply is going to become a huge issue too. Extreme weather systems like tornadoes will become more frequent and more powerful (increased temperature = increased windspeed), going on how well the US responded to Katrina thats cause for serious concern.

There's a chance that stable ocean currents, like the gulf stream will move or shut down, and by itself that would plunge much of Northern Europe into an ice age within a decade or so, thats a major problem seeing as there are over a Billion people that this has big consequences for.

My way of thinking is that we have all this trouble in the future caused by the warming that is undeniable. Sciences best and most educated guess as to the cause of this warming is us burning stuff like there's no tomorrow. It seems a no brainer to me to make serious effort to reduce our CO2 output and see what happens.

I still don't understand what is so bad about burning less stuff, using a little less energy and paying a bunch more tax. If scientists are wrong and we do all the CO2 reducing stuff and nothing happens cause the warming does have some other cause we have no clue about, then what have we lost in the meantime?

[BenBurch]

I'm sorry but reducing carbon output because of global warming makes about as much sense as increasing carbon output because of global cooling.

Huh?

[mhaze]

The need is for presentation of a calm and reasoned proposal toward mitigation.....Or not, as rationality dictates, but both are naturally opposed to greenie greed for control.

Such control does not coexist nicely with rationality...

[bokonon]

When I first started postng at JREF I was not convinced about AGW. It's beyond obvious that the planet is warming, but I figured that the climate is complex and that the issue was being overhyped.
And in the space of a few months, you've gone from that position to

our rabid burning of fuels to generate energy is the biggest cause of the present warming.
Wow.

Water supply is going to become a huge issue too.
How so? My understanding is that warmer air holds more water vapor, which should lead to more rain in general.

There's a chance that stable ocean currents, like the gulf stream will move or shut down, and by itself that would plunge much of Northern Europe into an ice age within a decade or so, thats a major problem seeing as there are over a Billion people that this has big consequences for.Ten years away from an ice age in Northern Europe? As a consequence of global warming?

I still don't understand what is so bad about burning less stuff, using a little less energy and paying a bunch more tax. If scientists are wrong and we do all the CO2 reducing stuff and nothing happens cause the warming does have some other cause we have no clue about, then what have we lost in the meantime?
I actually would favor slapping a tax of a couple of dollars per gallon on gasoline, to bring U.S. prices more into line with what the Europeans are paying, and encourage people to drive less frivolously. I don't think such a tax has a hope in hell of passing, but I'd favor it, if the money from the tax went solely into research into alternatives to petroleum-energized transportation.

As to what would we lose, what do you think we'd lose? Do you think industry is really burning fuel that it doesn't need to burn to create and transport the products it sells? Everything that isn't made by your next-door neighbor will become more expensive because it will cost more to get it from where it's made to where you can use it, and many things will also become more expensive to make. It isn't as though you can just wave a magic wand and start running factories on pixie dust.

I don't find your apocalyptic scenarios very credible, so I am not inclined to support drastic measures to avoid them. I support some steps to encourage people to find alternatives to fossil fuels simply because fossil fuels are unlikely to be plentiful a century or so down the road, and it seems wise to use some of the energy they can provide now to find other ways to do the jobs they're doing for us today.

There may be some steps that can be taken without much cost -- replacing commuting with communication, and having more people work at home or from remote offices which are close to home. What changes do you envision as we simply "burn less stuff"?

[mike3]

I maintain the biggest issue is that it’s a problem that requires government action to solve. People who follow political ideologues based on “government being the problem not the solution” are therefore forced to either alter their political views or deny the science.

Then there's also the sheer difficulty of getting government action to even take place when all the politicians have their heads rammed in you know where. Or in big piles of money, too.

[MattusMaximus]

I'm sure the politicians have overstated the problem of global warming. However, they have to. If politicians said "we need to start change now, else the tiny problem we have now may grow to be a moderate problem" no one would care. Small problems are shrugged off as insignificant to the general public. Our alarmist population needs things to be overblown if they are going to make any change.

No, they don't.

[mike3]

You reckon? It's not as if the shrug-don't-really-care students I meet on a daily basis, or the bus driver who regaled me with his view that it's all a big conspiracy, are being paid to do so, or are incapable of understanding the issue. If they had assimilated more salient facts and less biased factoids, I daresay they'd get it. Of course once you've turned denial into a personal crusade that your emotional wellbeing hinges on, like mhaze apparently, it's probably too late, but that's not the average denier. The average denier is just uninformed.

Then how come so many deniers here on this forum seem to persist so hard in trying to convince everyone they are right, creating exhaustively long threads and huge debates that often degenerate to childish insults and other forms of immature, irrational, emotional, and ultimately useless and even harmful communication, despite everyone's attempts to try valiantly and amazingly to help get them to, and give them what they need to, fill their ignorance with knowledge? Unless those aren't the "average" denier.

[MattusMaximus]

Then how come so many deniers here on this forum seem to persist so hard in trying to convince everyone they are right, creating exhaustively long threads and huge debates that often degenerate to childish insults and other forms of immature, irrational, emotional, and ultimately useless and even harmful communication, despite everyone's attempts to try valiantly and amazingly to help get them to, and give them what they need to, fill their ignorance with knowledge? Unless those aren't the "average" denier.

I would say they are not the "average" denier. Your average one is, in my view, basically someone who is simply ignorant of the science and who is either being led along & manipulated by the ideologues or who just doesn't know any better. I would classify some of our more hardcore deniers, like the ones you mentioned in your post with whom we constantly battle, as those very ideologues who take advantage of people's ignorance of a terribly complex scientific issue to push their agenda.

In short, not all deniers are hardcore ideologues, but all of the hardcore ideologues are deniers, even if only for cynical reasons (money, political influence, etc).

[macdoc]

Mike3
Then how come so many deniers here on this forum seem to persist so hard in trying to convince everyone they are right, creating exhaustively long threads and huge debates that often degenerate to childish insults and other forms of immature, irrational, emotional, and ultimately useless and even harmful communication,

you might just dub in religious types, anti-evo, anti-vaxxers in for deniers...
why are Swedes 75% no religious and other countries like the US more believe in the literal virgin birth than in evolution....:garfield:

...rational is in short supply in some circles....

[macdoc]

Boko questioned

Originally Posted by Ambrosia
When I first started postng at JREF I was not convinced about AGW. It's beyond obvious that the planet is warming, but I figured that the climate is complex and that the issue was being overhyped.
And in the space of a few months, you've gone from that position to

Originally Posted by Ambrosia
our rabid burning of fuels to generate energy is the biggest cause of the present warming.
Wow.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia
Water supply is going to become a huge issue too.
How so? My understanding is that warmer air holds more water vapor, which should lead to more rain in general.

Because Ambrosia read and understood the science he/she moved forward, you have not given your last statement you are still very confused about climate and consequences......

He simply agrees with what the science community including fossil fuel industries own scientists as far back 1995 that the primary driver of current warming is due to fossil carbon release through burning of fuels.

It's straight forward. He got there quickly.

He is also very correct in that hydrology will be the frontline challenge, already is in many areas, again had you been reading journals and understanding them you would know that.

Climate change means more extreme events, more drought, more intense rainfall and often in areas or at times when it's either not needed, not wanted or incredibly destructive.

As to thermohaline shut down, it's a low risk but the news out of Greenland continues to get worse in terms of glacial melt and the mechanism for shut down is understood....fresh water on the Atlantic

Abrupt Climate Change
Less salty water is less dense that the cold salty water deep in the North Atlantic. ... meridional overturning circulation when north atlantic becomes less salty ... Will ice melting in Greenland and the Arctic, due to recent global ..

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/abruptclimatechange.htm

I'd rank that in the low risk near term category...however once set in motion there is little or no way of knowing when an abrupt tipping point can be reached....and the consequences in this particular case are enormous to Europe.

Some risks are well into the future- significant sea level rise for instance - some are here now

Arctic melt to cost trillions: report - ABC News (Australian ...
Arctic melt to cost trillions: report. Posted February 6, 2010 18:24:0
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812229.htm

and hydrology changes of all sorts are beginning to impact regions...

Climate change lays waste to Spain's glaciers | Environment | The ...
23 Feb 2009 ... Their loss will have a severe impact on summer water supplies in the .... It was last modified at 09.08 GMT on Tuesday 24 February 2009. .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/spain-glaciers-climate-change

So there should be no surprise at his progress......the real question is given the time and people's patient in addressing your "points"...:rolleyes:..why haven't you made any discernible progress in understanding climate change science so you don't make naive comments like

I thought......more water vapour....etc

Perhaps addressing your own deficiencies instead of expressing surprise at another poster's progress in acquiring knowledge would be a more useful approach....:garfield:

ps Ambrosia....beyond obvious.....good line :thumbsup:

[Ambrosia]

And in the space of a few months, you've gone from that position to
our rabid burning of fuels to generate energy is the biggest cause of the present warming. Wow.

Way to misread/misrepresent what I said.

while nothing is proven it's very very likely (90+%) that our rabid burning of fuels to generate energy is the biggest cause of the present warming.

I don't see how one can look at the science and come to any other conclusion to be honest.

If you ignore all of the doomsayers and the political spin and look just purely at the science it's clear that a) the planet is warming up and b) CO2 is far and away the most likely culprit for the observed warming.


How so? My understanding is that warmer air holds more water vapor, which should lead to more rain in general.


I think that your understanding is flawed, but supposing you are correct.

Where might this rain fall? If rain doesn't fall onto areas used for farming, and where water is collected for distribution then we have a shortage of water.

When might this rain fall? If climate is altered so that much of the rain falls in a "rainy season" with lots of rainfall in a short space of time, with the rest of the year being hot and dry you have droughts and floods to contend with.


Ten years away from an ice age in Northern Europe? As a consequence of global warming?


As I understand it ten years ish away from an ice age in Northern Europe/Russia as a consequence of the Gulf Stream ocean current shutting down or drastically altering course. There is a *small* chance that GW *might* trigger such an event. How small a chance this is I have no idea, but why do we need to even consider taking that risk?


Do you think industry is really burning fuel that it doesn't need to burn to create and transport the products it sells?

Yes! Business is run in a capitalist economy. All that matters to a capitalist is the bottom line. If a business can make more money by using more fuel then it will use more fuel. Business isn't some super efficient thing that only ever uses the barest minimum of resource in the real world.

e.g. In the UK some supermarkets fly fresh vegetables from point of harvest to areas where labour is cheap (Eastern Europe) for sorting and packaging. Then the stuff is flown back to the UK for distribution and sale. They do this because it's cheaper for them to do so and their overriding interest is in their bottom line.


I don't find your apocalyptic scenarios very credible

Perhaps if you read what I actually write, instead of what you'd like me to have written, you might understand what I am saying a little better.

[bokonon]

Way to misread/misrepresent what I said.
You said "rabid burning". I simply quoted you. That isn't a statement supported by science, it's an emotional response. I'd even characterize it as "overhyped".

I think that your understanding is flawed, but supposing you are correct.

Where might this rain fall? If rain doesn't fall onto areas used for farming, and where water is collected for distribution then we have a shortage of water.

When might this rain fall? If climate is altered so that much of the rain falls in a "rainy season" with lots of rainfall in a short space of time, with the rest of the year being hot and dry you have droughts and floods to contend with.
Do you have any reason to suppose that rain will stop falling onto areas used for farming, or onto watersheds which supply reservoirs?

Is there a scientific basis for your speculation that globally-warmed rain will squeeze itself into a rainy season that is shorter than the rainy seasons which currently exist? Or is this alarmist "overhype"?

As I understand it ten years ish away from an ice age in Northern Europe/Russia as a consequence of the Gulf Stream ocean current shutting down or drastically altering course. There is a *small* chance that GW *might* trigger such an event. How small a chance this is I have no idea, but why do we need to even consider taking that risk?
Why? Because there is currently no replacement for the energy supplied by petroleum, for one thing.

I'm told that some scientists believe the "little ice age" was caused by shifts in the Gulf Stream. If so, the shift was not caused by fossil-fuel combustion. Where is the science that has observed a shift caused by GW? I can claim there is a small chance that cod fishing might trigger such an event, though of course I have no idea how small the chance is. Is it worth the "risk"?

Yes! Business is run in a capitalist economy. All that matters to a capitalist is the bottom line. If a business can make more money by using more fuel then it will use more fuel. Business isn't some super efficient thing that only ever uses the barest minimum of resource in the real world.

e.g. In the UK some supermarkets fly fresh vegetables from point of harvest to areas where labour is cheap (Eastern Europe) for sorting and packaging. Then the stuff is flown back to the UK for distribution and sale. They do this because it's cheaper for them to do so and their overriding interest is in their bottom line.
So all you have to do is get the people in the UK to labor more cheaply than the Eastern Europeans, and that problem is solved. Or, alternatively, get UK consumers to DEMAND that they be allowed to pay more for their sorted and packaged food, because they will not purchase products that pass through Eastern Europe. Are either of those the solution you had in mind?

Perhaps if you read what I actually write, instead of what you'd like me to have written, you might understand what I am saying a little better.
I'm reading what you're actually writing, but it doesn't seem to me that you're considering that solutions are not free. You seem to think "burn less" is all the guidance anyone needs to bring the problem to heel. There seems to be an element of magical thinking in play.

There is a small chance that if you drive to work your brakes will fail, and you will injure yourself or others. You can avoid this by walking to work every day. We assume small risks all the time because we weigh the likelihood of the improbable "worst-case" scenario against the certain cost of eliminating the risk.

How can you expect people to make big, disruptive changes on the basis of some unlikely doomsday scenario that's more fiction than science?

[Safe-Keeper]

It also seems a little self serving as well. It's as if the warmers want to cement their place in history saving the planet from humankind. "My generation made and then fixed the biggest problem in the history of the planet". It seems to me the issue of what to do isn't as important as getting people to admit it's a huge issue. It reminds me of two kids fighting on the playground. The warmers have the deniers in a headlock shouting "Say it! Say-It's getting warmer and it's all my fault. Just admit it and I'll let you go". Of course the deniers have dug themselves in and aren't admitting anything.So helping other people deal with a huge problem is now "a little self serving"?

What about the people who landed in Normandy in 1944? The Berlin air lift? The Marshall plan? Was all that "a little self serving", too, a way for the US to beat its chest and brag about how they saved the world from an evil empire?

[mhaze]

.... In the UK some supermarkets fly fresh vegetables from point of harvest to areas where labour is cheap (Eastern Europe) for sorting and packaging. Then the stuff is flown back to the UK for distribution and sale. They do this because it's cheaper for them to do so and their overriding interest is in their bottom line. ....Looks like a great idea to me.

Unless you just don't like air freight.

[macdoc]

Unlikely doomsday scenario eh Boko??......:rolleyes:

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 ? PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576)

and from Nature

Insights from earth : article : Nature Reports Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.03.html)

:garfield:

[bokonon]

Here's something from my copy of Nature, February 11, 2010, page 732:

The IPCC selects lead authors from the pool of those nominated by individual governments. Over time, many governments nominated only authors who were aligned with stated policy. Indeed, the selections for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented a disturbing homogeneity of thought regarding humans and climate.

Selected lead authors have the last word in the review cycle and so control the message, often ignoring or marginalising dissenting comments. 'Consensus' and manufactured-confidence ensued. [...] Now several errors of overstatement, such as that of the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers, have been exposed.

[...]

The truth, and this is frustrating for policy-makers, is that scientists' ignorance of the climate system is enormous. There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent work to do.

[bokonon]

Unlikely doomsday scenario eh Boko??......:rolleyes:

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 ? PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576)

and from Nature

Insights from earth : article : Nature Reports Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.03.html)

:garfield:
I read the reports at both of your links in their entirety, and as usual, they were completely irrelevant to the point you claimed to be making (i.e., that the unlikely doomsday scenarios were not so unlikely at all).

Nothing in either link made mention of ice ages triggered by shifting Gulf Stream currents (or even currents shifted by GW), or widespread drought and floods caused by climate-driven drift in rainfall patterns in time and space, which were the unlikely doomsday scenarios for which I was requesting the scientific underpinning.

[mhaze]

Want doomsdays?

Go Asteroids!

[Furcifer]

Really?

Our entire civilisation is dependant upon energy. We *need* energy and right now we get most of it from burning things. A whole bunch of people have got very wealthy and very powerful because they control how we get the energy we need, and they're not going to want anything to change in that regard anytime soon absent some really really good reasons.

People with lots of power and money get to buy influence, have a lot of lobbying power, and thus say in the political process and can and do fund media and "scientists" to spin their point of view to the rest of us.

When I first started postng at JREF I was not convinced about AGW. It's beyond obvious that the planet is warming, but I figured that the climate is complex and that the issue was being overhyped.

Then I got involved with a couple of AGW threads here and went and read more detail on climate science. When you take the time to do that you discover that yes the science is in, and while nothing is proven it's very very likely (90+%) that our rabid burning of fuels to generate energy is the biggest cause of the present warming. For it not to be there must be some other warming mechanism as yet unknown.

If you extend the warming trend a couple of decades it's not hard to surmise that the planets present climate patterns are going to be completely rewritten. Areas that we use now to grow lots of food are going to move. Not too big a problem in 1st world countries where we have higher technology, but it's going to make 3rd world famines more frequent and more devastating. Water supply is going to become a huge issue too. Extreme weather systems like tornadoes will become more frequent and more powerful (increased temperature = increased windspeed), going on how well the US responded to Katrina thats cause for serious concern.

There's a chance that stable ocean currents, like the gulf stream will move or shut down, and by itself that would plunge much of Northern Europe into an ice age within a decade or so, thats a major problem seeing as there are over a Billion people that this has big consequences for.

My way of thinking is that we have all this trouble in the future caused by the warming that is undeniable. Sciences best and most educated guess as to the cause of this warming is us burning stuff like there's no tomorrow. It seems a no brainer to me to make serious effort to reduce our CO2 output and see what happens.

I still don't understand what is so bad about burning less stuff, using a little less energy and paying a bunch more tax. If scientists are wrong and we do all the CO2 reducing stuff and nothing happens cause the warming does have some other cause we have no clue about, then what have we lost in the meantime?

Sounds like a conspiracy line. There no way to stop "burning things" for energy in the near future. We're already doing what we can to reduce CO2. The coal fired plants are being shutdown, alternative energy is being pomoted and new nuclear plants are already in the works.
I'm not familiar with your claim that energy is controlled by a few people and they don't want change and what ever conspiracy theory you think applies. Most of our energy here in Ontario comes from a government run body called OPG. There are also some privately owned companies like the one I work for running cogen and even nuclear. The primaray sources of energy are coal, nuclear and natural gas. I'm not sure who you think controls these resources? I'd love to hear your theory.

[Furcifer]

Huh?

Exactly. It makes no sense.

[mhaze]

Sounds like a conspiracy line. There no way to stop "burning things" for energy in the near future. We're already doing what we can to reduce CO2. The coal fired plants are being shutdown, alternative energy is being pomoted and new nuclear plants are already in the works....

Sounds like you've stated a platform of some organization, political party or company. The bolded statement is not true in general to any substantial degree in any of it's four parts.

[Ambrosia]

You said "rabid burning". I simply quoted you. That isn't a statement supported by science.

from earlier in this very thread:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/globalco2emission.gif


Do you have any reason to suppose that rain will stop falling onto areas used for farming, or onto watersheds which supply reservoirs?

Just (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110171741.htm) a (http://www.iwaponline.com/nh/028/0037/0280037.pdf) few (http://iahs.info/redbooks/a197/iahs_197_0401.pdf) reasons (http://www.livescience.com/environment/090701-tropical-rain-moving-north.html), here's (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/20/0907610106.abstract) a (http://std.cpc.ku.ac.th/delta/conf/Acrobat/Papers_Eng/Volume%201/Banchaa.pdf) selection (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/4/1/2/p174123_index.html) of (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/24/climate.change.eskimos/index.html) papers/articles (http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/Working_Papers/working/WOR110.pdf) which (http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04PSW_Dettingeretal.pdf) show (http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/ecosystems.jsp) that (http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Water%20SA%20Journals/Manuscripts/2007/03/WaterSA_2007_03_2076.pdf) weather (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPV-3W31NWM-K&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1214673183&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=69fd9332a0185b75ab0fd66edcdf940d) patterns (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20091512-20407-2.html) are (http://www.physorg.com/news169749928.html) highly (http://www.zsl.org/conservation/climate-change/whats-the-problem/) likely (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046) to (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:auFAh2lSphgJ:infoscience.epfl.ch/record/101204/files/Nazemosadat-30B4.pdf+climate+change+moving+rainfall&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiiFvEVmp_qt-LVTN0TDIFnhvYx0aRKBcM7h_7SlD6iS_SbQfKlf26BsF3_qwaa AGfqVBrxu-An511jgtT46sZwpFS3eqdQmLTD1dX8dtyWZJfZnrtOQ58XiUfM sCzk87upvY20&sig=AHIEtbSIBpFOa5sWDkYFc1STAR7fC2C7ng) shift (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/09/14_birds.shtml) as (http://www.climatehotmap.org/harbingers.html) a (http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0827-nasa.html) result (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html) of (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/changes-future/fig3-3.jpg/view) Global (http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm) Warming (http://air.geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/ms2/kaki/paper/JH_Sato_FinalForm.pdf) around (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/default.htm) the (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080807_rainfall.htm) world (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming-reports2/when-it-rains-it-pours-global-warming-and-the-rising-frequency-of-extreme-precipitation-in-the-united-states).


Is there a scientific basis for your speculation that globally-warmed rain will squeeze itself into a rainy season that is shorter than the rainy seasons which currently exist?

Yes. See above links.


Why? Because there is currently no replacement for the energy supplied by petroleum, for one thing.

Yes there is. Nuclear energy could replace all power generation requirements currently based on fossil fuel. Scientists have now got engineered bacteria that produce petroleum (http://www.ls9.com/) based fuels, carbon nanotube based solar cells have recently been developed that are tens of times more efficient than present commercially available technology. It might not be on the market yet, but the technology to replace fossil fuel exists already.


I'm told that some scientists believe the "little ice age" was caused by shifts in the Gulf Stream. If so, the shift was not caused by fossil-fuel combustion.

No. But what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

If the Gulf stream moves a likely result is an iceage. The physics doesn't care what causes the Gulf Stream to move, it only cares that it does move.


Where is the science that has observed a shift caused by GW?

I'm not sure there is any, by the time there is a paper out showing that the Gulf Stream has shifted it would already be too late. More recent climate models suggest the ocean currents are more stable than previously thought, however weaking this current by ~50% is expected to drop temperatures in Northern Europe by ~3-4C which would not be good news for agriculture. A weakened THC is much more likely than a complete shutdown.



I'm reading what you're actually writing, but it doesn't seem to me that you're considering that solutions are not free.

And you seem to be saying that all measures that are suggested to drastically reduce CO2 output will doom western civilisation to the poor house for the forseeable future. Of course taking steps to reduce CO2 are going to cost money, but can't we do some cost/benefit analysis here?

We haven't even got to the point where most people agree that "something must be done" everyone is still arguing over that, spin doctors from the anti-AGW camp are claiming that it all costs too much, spin doctors from the AGW cap are saying we will all die soon if we do nothing.

If you sweep all of the political crap off the table and just look at the science from respected scientists thats now available would you care to put a % figure on the chances of global warming having serious consequences for our developed world?


There is a small chance that if you drive to work your brakes will fail, and you will injure yourself or others. You can avoid this by walking to work every day.

It's bad analogy hour!

If you walk to work depending on your route you also run the risk of someone elses brakes failing and you being run over by a vehicle, walking to work does not reduce the chances of you dying en route to zero.


How can you expect people to make big, disruptive changes on the basis of some unlikely doomsday scenario that's more fiction than science?

I don't. I don't see that the changes we need to make have to be that big and disruptive, and I don't see projections from climatologists as doomsday scenarios.

[Furcifer]

Sounds like you've stated a platform of some organization, political party or company. The bolded statement is not true in general to any substantial degree in any of it's four parts.

I'm standing in front of the 2009/2010 Electric Power System poster by platts (MGraw-Hill) and it begs to differ. In most NERC regions planned additional generation is almost entirely solar, natural gas and nuclear. Look at my region NPCCC, there is no proposed increase in coal, and I know Lambton is shutting down.

You haven't really considered what's going on have you? You probably haven't looked much beyond the obvious lack of nuclear. I was right where you are now before I got into the industry. I thought no one was doing anything besides going through the motions, and all we needed to do was build more nuke plants. It isn't that simple. I'd love to shut down the coal plants today but it isn't possible. And shutting all the ones we could would drive the price of electricity through the roof. I doubt if you're prepared to pay $600-750 a month for your residential service.
Take a look at what the future of power generation is in your area and get back to me. From what I see everything is online with our goal to reduce CO2 and maintain a cheap, steady supply of electricity.

[mhaze]

...I doubt if you're prepared to pay $600-750 a month for your residential service.
Take a look at what the future of power generation is in your area and get back to me. From what I see everything is online with our goal to reduce CO2 and maintain a cheap, steady supply of electricity.Right, I was just pointing out that that was Your Goal or something like that. Not meaning to be critical really.

It's not my goal, it's not China's, India's, etc. Is it the goal of the USA? Nope, since the way that we will meet the 2% additional electric demand per year is going to be coal. Oh, there will be a little more natural gas, a little more wind, a little more nuclear. But the amount of TALK about natural gas, renewables, and nuclear will be huge, while the actuals are low.

Due to the propaganda.

[Furcifer]

Yes there is. Nuclear energy could replace all power generation requirements currently based on fossil fuel. Scientists have now got engineered bacteria that produce petroleum (http://www.ls9.com/) based fuels, carbon nanotube based solar cells have recently been developed that are tens of times more efficient than present commercially available technology. It might not be on the market yet, but the technology to replace fossil fuel exists already.




I'm not sure there is any, by the time there is a paper out showing that the Gulf Stream has shifted it would already be too late. More recent climate models suggest the ocean currents are more stable than previously thought, however weaking this current by ~50% is expected to drop temperatures in Northern Europe by ~3-4C which would not be good news for agriculture. A weakened THC is much more likely than a complete shutdown.


And you seem to be saying that all measures that are suggested to drastically reduce CO2 output will doom western civilisation to the poor house for the forseeable future. Of course taking steps to reduce CO2 are going to cost money, but can't we do some cost/benefit analysis here?

We haven't even got to the point where most people agree that "something must be done" everyone is still arguing over that, spin doctors from the anti-AGW camp are claiming that it all costs too much, spin doctors from the AGW cap are saying we will all die soon if we do nothing.

If you sweep all of the political crap off the table and just look at the science from respected scientists thats now available would you care to put a % figure on the chances of global warming having serious consequences for our developed world?



It's bad analogy hour!

If you walk to work depending on your route you also run the risk of someone elses brakes failing and you being run over by a vehicle, walking to work does not reduce the chances of you dying en route to zero.



I don't. I don't see that the changes we need to make have to be that big and disruptive, and I don't see projections from climatologists as doomsday scenarios.

It would take 500 nuclear plants to replace all the fossil fuel generating plants. Your claim that nuclear could entirely replace fossil fuel ranks up there with me claiming World peace will put an end to World hunger this Tuesday.

The doom and gloom pitch is getting pretty old isn't it? We don't know and we can't say for sure what will happen one way or another. Nothing stays the same way forever. If the world comes to an end we'll leave detailed instructions for the next civilization on what to do. :D

[Furcifer]

Right, I was just pointing out that that was Your Goal or something like that. Not meaning to be critical really.

It's not my goal, it's not China's, India's, etc. Is it the goal of the USA? Nope, since the way that we will meet the 2% additional electric demand per year is going to be coal. Oh, there will be a little more natural gas, a little more wind, a little more nuclear. But the amount of TALK about natural gas, renewables, and nuclear will be huge, while the actuals are low.

Due to the propaganda.

sigh. I'm standing in front of a giant map of North America. It gives a chart showing the exact breakdown of what generation is in the works in each region. The biggest increase in coal is in the SERC region where it only represents 1/4 (10000MW of the 40000). It's less in all other regions, and in my region it's 0, and in fact it's negative. I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but here in North America the increase in demand will not be met by coal.
It will be maintained by coal. Which sucks, but that's the reason we need to clean it up. I'm not sure why people think coal can't be cleaned up? Talk about propaganda. I'm not convinced a few billion spent on research and retrofitting couldn't make coal drastically cleaner.

[Ambrosia]

I'm not familiar with your claim that energy is controlled by a few people and they don't want change and what ever conspiracy theory you think applies. The primaray sources of energy are coal, nuclear and natural gas. I'm not sure who you think controls these resources? I'd love to hear your theory.

So now I'm a CTist? *sigh*

I am saying that energy prduction is being controlled by the people that run the energy companies, i.e. the people at the top of the oil companies and the people at the top of the energy companies, all of them competing with each other, and all of them having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo which is making them very wealthy indeed.

It would take 500 nuclear plants to replace all the fossil fuel generating plants. Your claim that nuclear could entirely replace fossil fuel ranks up there with me claiming World peace will put an end to World hunger this Tuesday.

No, I'm not putting a timescale on my claim. You say it'd take 500 nuclear plants to replace fossil fuel, so we build 500 nuclear plants, it'll take a while longer than a week next Tuesday, but I'm saying that it could be done.


The doom and gloom pitch is getting pretty old isn't it? We don't know and we can't say for sure what will happen one way or another.

What doom and gloom pitch? I am not saying civilisation is going to end here, that won't happen until the sun goes red giant or some other huge calamity befalls the planet, hopefully enough years down the line so that we can get the hell off this rock before then.

I am saying that it's likely that if we do nothing about CO2 then we'll face a lot more extreme weather, that temperate zones where much food is grown are going to shift, so we'll have to shift with them, and that water supply is going to become a big problem for much of the planet. I'm saying that the costs of dealing with this stuff after it happens are going to dwarf the costs we would need to bear today to ameliorate the problem, and even if it turns out that CO2 wasn't a big deal after all, it's still a win win scenario because we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels sometime.

It takes ~3million years for the planet to produce as much fossil fuel as we burn globally in 1 year, that's not going to continue a great deal longer.

[mhaze]

....I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but here in North America the increase in demand will not be met by coal.
It will be maintained by coal. Which sucks, but that's the reason we need to clean it up. I'm not sure why people think coal can't be cleaned up? Talk about propaganda. I'm not convinced a few billion spent on research and retrofitting couldn't make coal drastically cleaner.I'll look up some of the numbers.

But what do you call "drastically cleaner"? If you mean cleaning up the pollutants, that can be done. If you mean carbon sequestration, that's a fantasy.

And it presumes there is a reason to sequester carbon...

[Furcifer]

So now I'm a CTist? *sigh*

I am saying that energy prduction is being controlled by the people that run the energy companies, i.e. the people at the top of the oil companies and the people at the top of the energy companies, all of them competing with each other, and all of them having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo which is making them very wealthy indeed.



No, I'm not putting a timescale on my claim. You say it'd take 500 nuclear plants to replace fossil fuel, so we build 500 nuclear plants, it'll take a while longer than a week next Tuesday, but I'm saying that it could be done.



What doom and gloom pitch? I am not saying civilisation is going to end here, that won't happen until the sun goes red giant or some other huge calamity befalls the planet, hopefully enough years down the line so that we can get the hell off this rock before then.

I am saying that it's likely that if we do nothing about CO2 then we'll face a lot more extreme weather, that temperate zones where much food is grown are going to shift, so we'll have to shift with them, and that water supply is going to become a big problem for much of the planet. I'm saying that the costs of dealing with this stuff after it happens are going to dwarf the costs we would need to bear today to ameliorate the problem, and even if it turns out that CO2 wasn't a big deal after all, it's still a win win scenario because we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels sometime.

It takes ~3million years for the planet to produce as much fossil fuel as we burn globally in 1 year, that's not going to continue a great deal longer.

No I'm saying you sound like one when you make references like that. Americans are capitalists, if there's money to be made that's where the interests lie. Coal is cheap, and it isn't running out anytime soon. So what makes more sense, investing in a more expensive and somewhat outdated nuclear program or cleaning up the cheaper coal industry? Coal is far from being as clean as it could be. It also has the potential to burn biomass with very little changeover. That's what we really need. Yes, for the love of Pete we need more nuclear but how much more beyond what we already have planned? It's completely unrealistic to think we can just build nuclear plants and save the world. There are limitations beyond the naive protesters to what, where and how soon. People need to recognize this in order to make an educated descision on what should happen in the coming years. The fact is it isn't possible to expect 500 nuclear plants to be built in NA in the next 50 years. It's important to be realistic isn't it?

We are doing things about CO2. I'm nt sure if you've heard about the regulations that came into effect this year? The standards have been decided upon with careful consideration to what is feasible and financially responsible. I live in a small apartment that happens to have electric heat (no fossil fuels in my home) and it cost me a small fortune last month to heat it. I'm not prepared to pay any more for electricity right now, and I suspect there are very few that could afford to do so right now either. This is one of the biggest reasons for denial of AGW, I had a $200 electric bill to heat 600 sqft. Think of how many families I coud feed overses if my hydro was reduced to $100. Now that's not realistic either, you know as well as I do I wouldn't be sponsoring a family with the money I saved. But there is a trickle down effect. Not only that but it's a proven fact that a cheap source of energy is the best way to stimulate an economy.
So consider that for a moment. It would require sizable investment to even begin building nuclear. That's an investment in infrastructure which is good for the country no doubt. But that money is money that doesn't make it overseas to the people you are so desperately trying to protect. That comes at a loss to all the workers in shops and factories around the world. How much more would they suffer as we make changes to our CO2 output, trying to protect them from climactic changes we aren't really sure on?
I can't say for certain, but I think it's easier to show the money spent on building nuclear plants will directly impact the same people you claim might be impacted by global warmig. Can you really show as direct a link?
The other issue I have is that there is nothing to say that a global increase in temperature won't lead to better conditions. Heat means evaporation, more evaporation means more precipitation. Areas that don't have water probably won't see more precipitation, but the areas that already do will. As a North American I'm inclined to believe an increase in temperature will be a benefit to our primary crops such as wheat, corn and soya bean. We may actually be better prepared to feed the world if we experience an increase in temperature.
I'll tell you this though, I think I find myself a little cynical because I've grown up in an area of North America with very few natural disasters, a large fresh water supply and fertile land. I've never understood people that chose to live on a fault line or at the bottom of a volcano. Sure there are people that have no choice due to being poor, but how many chose despite having the option to move elsewhere? I think money would be better spent relocating the people that want to move if it ever came down to that.

But I'm repeating myself now. There sure is no shortage of threads on this issue. Only material to discuss it would seem.

[BenBurch]

Well, yeah, you could replace it all with Nuclear.

And we should.

And ultimately, we will.

Don't think its quick, though.

[novaphile]

I'm interested that no-one seems to be drawing conclusions about AGW being a threat to people's "love of their cars".

There's an argument that goes like this:

1. Post WWII industry geared up to make cars, but sales were very low, as generally people didn't see a need for private cars...

2. The advertising industry created a need for cars by associating cars with the following themes: car = freedom; car = sexual success; and, car = adulthood.

3. These messages have been consistently used for 50+ years.

So now, when a person person hears people talking about making changes to reduce AGW, some people see this (at a very low level) as:

OMG!!! They are going to remove my [freedom | sexual appendage |adulthood]!!!

Just a thought.

PS. I think I came across the above argument in a book called "Divorce your car." but it was a long time ago, so I can't be sure.

[BenBurch]

I wish we had streetcars here still... I would happily do without my car if public transit were credible.

[Slimething]

Or not, as rationality dictates, but both are naturally opposed to greenie greed for control.

Such control does not coexist nicely with rationality...

Agreed. Whether or not a given electorate decides to act would depend on the perception of the threat. In this case, AGW mitigation proponents have completely mismanaged their campaign.

By and large, environmental NGOs have pissed in their own soup by constantly predicting dire results that don't pan out. They have seized AGW to try to further their disparate agendas by using AGW as a new coat of paint on their old proposals. Many people can see right through that veneer and have concluded that this is just the latest scare to push the old ideas through.

Agree with AGW or not, the phenomenon of public distrust of AGW policy is a fascinating topic in its own right.

[mhaze]

Agreed. Whether or not a given electorate decides to act would depend on the perception of the threat. In this case, AGW mitigation proponents have completely mismanaged their campaign.

By and large, environmental NGOs have pissed in their own soup by constantly predicting dire results that don't pan out. They have seized AGW to try to further their disparate agendas by using AGW as a new coat of paint on their old proposals. Many people can see right through that veneer and have concluded that this is just the latest scare to push the old ideas through.

Agree with AGW or not, the phenomenon of public distrust of AGW policy is a fascinating topic in its own right.Yes, I think there will be (are being??) a dozen books written about it.

Sadly the question is not "how should/could/ought we to have lied better" but that is going to be the take on the matter from a lot of ends justifies means progressives.

[Furcifer]

Well, yeah, you could replace it all with Nuclear.

And we should.

And ultimately, we will.

Don't think its quick, though.

At least 25 years before some real progress. Gen IV reactors and they are what we really need. We need to bring them online ASAP, then push towards prodominantly nuclear generation. Until then we're stuck with coal becase it's so cheap.

[bokonon]

Do you have any reason to suppose that rain will stop falling onto areas used for farming, or onto watersheds which supply reservoirs?

Just (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110171741.htm) a (http://www.iwaponline.com/nh/028/0037/0280037.pdf) few (http://iahs.info/redbooks/a197/iahs_197_0401.pdf) reasons (http://www.livescience.com/environment/090701-tropical-rain-moving-north.html), here's (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/20/0907610106.abstract) a (http://std.cpc.ku.ac.th/delta/conf/Acrobat/Papers_Eng/Volume%201/Banchaa.pdf) selection (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/4/1/2/p174123_index.html) of (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/24/climate.change.eskimos/index.html) papers/articles (http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/Working_Papers/working/WOR110.pdf) which (http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04PSW_Dettingeretal.pdf) show (http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/ecosystems.jsp) that (http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Water%20SA%20Journals/Manuscripts/2007/03/WaterSA_2007_03_2076.pdf) weather (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPV-3W31NWM-K&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1214673183&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=69fd9332a0185b75ab0fd66edcdf940d) patterns (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20091512-20407-2.html) are (http://www.physorg.com/news169749928.html) highly (http://www.zsl.org/conservation/climate-change/whats-the-problem/) likely (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046) to (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:auFAh2lSphgJ:infoscience.epfl.ch/record/101204/files/Nazemosadat-30B4.pdf+climate+change+moving+rainfall&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiiFvEVmp_qt-LVTN0TDIFnhvYx0aRKBcM7h_7SlD6iS_SbQfKlf26BsF3_qwaa AGfqVBrxu-An511jgtT46sZwpFS3eqdQmLTD1dX8dtyWZJfZnrtOQ58XiUfM sCzk87upvY20&sig=AHIEtbSIBpFOa5sWDkYFc1STAR7fC2C7ng) shift (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/09/14_birds.shtml) as (http://www.climatehotmap.org/harbingers.html) a (http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0827-nasa.html) result (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html) of (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/changes-future/fig3-3.jpg/view) Global (http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm) Warming (http://air.geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/ms2/kaki/paper/JH_Sato_FinalForm.pdf) around (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/default.htm) the (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080807_rainfall.htm) world (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming-reports2/when-it-rains-it-pours-global-warming-and-the-rising-frequency-of-extreme-precipitation-in-the-united-states).

Wow. I'll bet that took a long time to type. Did you also take the time to read the links? I did. This is what I found:

Just (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110171741.htm)
At the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago, climate records from Greenland show a warm period called the Bolling-Allerod period. Oster and Montanez's results show that at the same time, California became much drier.
a (http://www.iwaponline.com/nh/028/0037/0280037.pdf)
Evidence is presented of a general increase in river flows...
few (http://iahs.info/redbooks/a197/iahs_197_0401.pdf)
Annual, seasonal and monthly rainfall, annual number of rain days and annual maximum daily rainfall data have been analysed for trend and jump in the mean and no significant results attributable to the "greenhouse" effect were detected.
reasons (http://www.livescience.com/environment/090701-tropical-rain-moving-north.html),
The amount of rain in the zone actually increased between 1979 and 2005,
here's (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/20/0907610106.abstract)
Global warming is expected to lead to a large increase in atmospheric water vapor content
a (http://std.cpc.ku.ac.th/delta/conf/Acrobat/Papers_Eng/Volume%201/Banchaa.pdf)
there is no correlation between rainfall and temperature
selection (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/4/1/2/p174123_index.html)
Potential climate change effects including increased precipitation
of (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/24/climate.change.eskimos/index.html)
summer deluges from ocean storm surges
papers/articles (http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/Working_Papers/working/WOR110.pdf)
The extended drought periods are often thought to be related to increasing climate variability arising from CC, although studies supporting these perceptions in the area are yet to be carried out.
which (http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04PSW_Dettingeretal.pdf)
there is essentially no consensus among current climate models as to how precipitation might change over California in response to global warming
show (http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/ecosystems.jsp)
On average, precipitation has increased globally over the last century, including over the United States.
that (http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Water%20SA%20Journals/Manuscripts/2007/03/WaterSA_2007_03_2076.pdf)
the annual rainfall was still more or less the same as in previous years
weather (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPV-3W31NWM-K&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1214673183&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=69fd9332a0185b75ab0fd66edcdf940d)
For the annual series two sites on the West-cost and the one site on the North-cost show an increase in precipitation
patterns (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20091512-20407-2.html)
decreasing rainfall
are (http://www.physorg.com/news169749928.html)
average annual precipitation will increase in both the deep tropics and in temperate zones
highly (http://www.zsl.org/conservation/climate-change/whats-the-problem/)
An increase in winter rainfall (with associated flooding risks) and a decrease in summer rainfall is already being witnessed.
likely (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046)
undefinedundefined Ice age conditions generally occur when all of the above conspire to create a minimum of summer sunlight on the arctic regions of the earth
to (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:auFAh2lSphgJ:infoscience.epfl.ch/record/101204/files/Nazemosadat-30B4.pdf+climate+change+moving+rainfall&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiiFvEVmp_qt-LVTN0TDIFnhvYx0aRKBcM7h_7SlD6iS_SbQfKlf26BsF3_qwaa AGfqVBrxu-An511jgtT46sZwpFS3eqdQmLTD1dX8dtyWZJfZnrtOQ58XiUfM sCzk87upvY20&sig=AHIEtbSIBpFOa5sWDkYFc1STAR7fC2C7ng)
annual precipitation over most of the studied regions has increased
shift (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/09/14_birds.shtml)
Sierra Nevada birds move in response to warmer, wetter climate
as (http://www.climatehotmap.org/harbingers.html)
A warmer climate will bring an increase in precipitation worldwide
a (http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0827-nasa.html)
Global warming causes increase in tropical rainfall
result (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html)
Increasing temperatures tend to increase evaporation which leads to more precipitation
of (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/changes-future/fig3-3.jpg/view)
Due to warming oceans, precipitation in the form of rain and snow fall will increase
Global (http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm)
According to the IPCC-AR4, “[i]ncreases in the amount of precipitation are very likely
Warming (http://air.geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/ms2/kaki/paper/JH_Sato_FinalForm.pdf)
decreasing precipitation over northern Mongolia and slight increase over southern Mongolia
around (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/default.htm)
Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense.
the (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080807_rainfall.htm)
Heavy rain is coming more often as global warming continues
world (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming-reports2/when-it-rains-it-pours-global-warming-and-the-rising-frequency-of-extreme-precipitation-in-the-united-states).
Scientists expect global warming to increase the frequency of heavy precipitation.


Wow. Two dozen links to answer the question "Do you have any reason to suppose that rain will stop falling...", and the vast majority of them say we should expect MORE rain. A couple say less, a couple find no correlation, and a couple appear to be completely unrelated.

Where have I seen that tactic before? Oh, yeah, from this guy:
Boko questioned

Water supply is going to become a huge issue too.
How so? My understanding is that warmer air holds more water vapor, which should lead to more rain in general.
Because Ambrosia read and understood the science he/she moved forward, you have not given your last statement you are still very confused about climate and consequences......

Hey, maybe you should call Mac, and you two could take turns reading your links to each other over the phone. I mean, I say warmer air holds more water which leads to more rain, and Mac says I'm confused. He says you understand the science, and you've just provided two dozen links that say the same thing I said.

[mhaze]

You just don't get it, do you? Denial is the attitude of not agreeing with whatever Warmer-of-the-minute extemporaneously postulates.

[Dorian Gray]

While global warming is happening, it's not definite that humans are one of the causes, much less the only cause. There's actually three factions, but some of the people in two of them don't realize it. No global warming, global warming but humans aren't the cause, global warming and humans are the cause.

[macdoc]

:dl:

yeah and there really is an easter bunny too...:rolleyes:

even the fossil fuel companies acknowledge the problem ..

it's warming
we're primarily responsible through fossil fuel use

..did you not get the memo? :garfield:

[Ambrosia]

While global warming is happening, it's not definite that humans are one of the causes, much less the only cause.

Yes, yes it is.

It's just a question of how much of a cause we are, ranging from responsible for the vast majority of the warming, down to human activity barely registers amongst the natural warming that is happening at present.

[Ambrosia]

You said "rabid burning". I simply quoted you. That isn't a statement supported by science, it's an emotional response. I'd even characterize it as "overhyped".from earlier in this very thread:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/globalco2emission.gif

Going by your lack of response to most of my earlier post I am assuming you agree that "rabid burning" is a reasonable adjective for human activity re fossil fuels in recent industrial history?


Do you have any reason to suppose that rain will stop falling onto areas used for farming, or onto watersheds which supply reservoirs?

Is there a scientific basis for your speculation that globally-warmed rain will squeeze itself into a rainy season that is shorter than the rainy seasons which currently exist?

See now you asked me what scientific basis there was that weather patterns will shift, that how I read what I have quoted just above.

So cue a bunch of links to support this.
Which you promptly quote mined, and ignored much of the rest of what I wrote.

Two dozen links to answer the question "Do you have any reason to suppose that rain will stop falling...",

No. Two dozen links to point out how stupid I think that question is, the one I thought you asked me which was "is there any scientific basis to back up the idea that weather patterns are going to shift"

In some parts of the world more rain will fall, but that rain won't fall evenly, and will fall in a "rainy season" causing both droughts AND floods.

I mean, I say warmer air holds more water which leads to more rain, [...] you've just provided two dozen links that say the same thing I said.

You are misunderstanding "more rain" it's not how much rain falls on average over a year, it's how and when it falls, if it all comes at once and then there are 10 months of no rain at all thats useless for agriculture.

Those links basically are saying "yes the weather patterns are going to shift, but we don't know how"

[CORed]

and thats called hyperbole.

It's also irrelevant. Whether Al Gore is or is not a hypocritical polluter has absolutely no bearing on the whether the evidence for AGW is valid.

[CORed]

They cannot give you a simple explanation why CO2 is the bogeyman because it doesn’t exist.

Excuse me? The physical mechanism (absorption of infrared) by which CO2 causes warming is very well understood.

[BenBurch]

Excuse me? The physical mechanism (absorption of infrared) by which CO2 causes warming is very well understood.

Studied to death for well over a century, in fact, and Astronomers SEE the effect.

[CORed]

No.

Climate change is about the biggest imaginable "tragedy of the commons" problem and energy is involved in almost every aspect of the economy. Various people on the far left found it a politically expedient to suggest crazy solutions(of the 'central planning and socialism didn't produce a higher standard of living, but now we really have to have it to protect the environment from the excesses of capitalism'-kind).

Rather than try and mount a reply(e.g. just internalize the cost of carbon by phasing in a direct tax on carbon; let the market solve it rather than try to resurrect central planning and try to pick winners and losers) many on the right have taken the lazy approach and just flat deny there's a problem.

One of the biggest ironies in the whole thing is that many on the left oppose nuclear power but think that we really need to get serious about global warming, while many on the right embrace nuclear power but don't think there's any reason to limit carbon emissions.


I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The "inconvenient truth" that many in the "the sky is falling" camp seem to ignore is that reducing carbon emissions is going to have some pretty nasty economic impacts. This is especially true of the more radical regulatory schemes, but is also true even of a simple carbon tax. While I believe that AGW is real, and is likely to cause some serious problems in the long run, I don't buy into the idea that the reality of AGW automatically means that a massive multinational regulatory bureaucracy is the solution. There should be a debate ongoing on what is the best way to solve the problem, but it seems to be either AGW is real so we need worldwide regulation or, AGW isn't real, it's a massive conspiracy of socialists and environmentalists who hate America.

[mhaze]

.... There should be a debate ongoing on what is the best way to solve the problem, but it seems to be either AGW is real so we need worldwide regulation or, AGW isn't real, it's a massive conspiracy of socialists and environmentalists who hate America.

Watermelon People?

Green on the outside, red on the inside?

They have very rigid egos which shatter easily.

[thaiboxerken]

No, they don't.

If they want something to be done, they do. The USA is a mob, the mob mentality only acts on what they perceive to be catastrophic problems.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I live in a thousand sq. ft house and drive a POS 1999 Saturn that still gets 38 M.P.G. I've flown twice in my life. My carbon footprint is almost non-existent. But I'm not convinced that AGW is true.

I'm also very liberal. Go figure.I'm tentatively concluding you just haven't evaluated enough of the available science on the subject. It's wise to say you don't know when you don't. Not everyone is going to have seriously looked at the material in every controversial scientific case.

[pchams]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?
For me, it's the lack of substantial evidence. I went to school and took science courses. The teachers wisely (IMHO) taught us not to come to conclusions based upon emotion, but upon evidence.
I'm not a denier (that is an emotional/political term used here by the non-critical thinkers). I'm a skeptic.
Show me the evidence that it is indeed man-made and I'll be on board.
No one on this board, or elseware for that matter has done that for me(It probably may be that I'm limited in my ability to understand it from the arguments presented here).

I'm all for reduction of pollution and corporate responsibility in the production of the things we need, but it seems some have just turned
pseudo critical thinking into a political sounding board and tool.
This is no help to our species.
We have many problems to overcome. Population, and the pollution and economical problems which it creates probably overshadows any of these other problems we need to address.

[MattusMaximus]

I'm sure the politicians have overstated the problem of global warming. However, they have to. If politicians said "we need to start change now, else the tiny problem we have now may grow to be a moderate problem" no one would care. Small problems are shrugged off as insignificant to the general public. Our alarmist population needs things to be overblown if they are going to make any change.

No, they don't.

If they want something to be done, they do. The USA is a mob, the mob mentality only acts on what they perceive to be catastrophic problems.

You mean like using the mob mentality to start unnecessary wars in the Middle East? No thanks, I've never been one for giving into mob mentality, and I don't like the idea of cynically appealing to that aspect of our humanity when there's another way. I say present the best evidence for AGW science, let the scientists promote and defend the research, and let them take on the denialist ideologues who are attempting to muddy the issue. The scientific community (and those supportive politicians) should not stoop to the level of those who are misrepresenting the science - I feel that can only end badly.

But we're derailing - this particular discussion should be in the Politics subforum.

[MattusMaximus]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The "inconvenient truth" that many in the "the sky is falling" camp seem to ignore is that reducing carbon emissions is going to have some pretty nasty economic impacts. This is especially true of the more radical regulatory schemes, but is also true even of a simple carbon tax. While I believe that AGW is real, and is likely to cause some serious problems in the long run, I don't buy into the idea that the reality of AGW automatically means that a massive multinational regulatory bureaucracy is the solution. There should be a debate ongoing on what is the best way to solve the problem, but it seems to be either AGW is real so we need worldwide regulation or, AGW isn't real, it's a massive conspiracy of socialists and environmentalists who hate America.

Exactly. This should be the real debate, not this stupid "GW is a hoax" and "it's global cooling" crap which is going on now :rolleyes:

[lomiller]

Show me the evidence that it is indeed man-made and I'll be on board.



The latest IPCC report cites some 2000 peer reviewed papers, that'd be a good place to start.




No one on this board, or elseware for that matter has done that for me(It probably may be that I'm limited in my ability to understand it from the arguments presented here).


A skeptic would recognize this as an argument from ignorance. You not understanding the evidence is not an argument against it.

[Ambrosia]

For me, it's the lack of substantial evidence. [..] I'm a skeptic.
Show me the evidence that it is indeed man-made and I'll be on board.

To distinguish between simultaneous natural and
anthropogenic impacts on surface temperature, regionally
as well as globally, we perform a robust multivariate
analysis using the best available estimates of each together
with the observed surface temperature record from 1889 to
2006.

[...]

Natural changes cannot account for the significant
long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature
anomalies.

[...]

None of the natural processes can account for the
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years, not 69% as claimed by Scafetta and West [2008]

[ linky (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf)]

There is an abundance of quality evidence to show that Global Warming is definitely happening and that it is almost certainly caused by human activity, primarily via releasing CO2.

[Furcifer]

Exactly. This should be the real debate, not this stupid "GW is a hoax" and "it's global cooling" crap which is going on now :rolleyes:

Seconded.

I'm curious what the point of convincing the skeptics is? It doesn't matter one way or the other really. We have to reduce CO2 and we have to prepare for what might come as a result of past and future transgressions. There's no guarantee even the most drastic measures could reverse what has already happened. This is our society, we burn stuff, it's a major part of what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It's not going to stop anytime soon.
If it helps, I'm willing to admit it's all my fault. I accept full responsibility for global warming.

Now what?

[Belz...]

You just don't get it, do you? Denial is the attitude of not agreeing with whatever Warmer-of-the-minute extemporaneously postulates.

You know, people might take you more seriously if your entire argument didn't rely on saying "don't agree with global warming, don't be a sheep!"

[jmarcure]

So what was burned during the MWP that cause the higher temperature then? Was it the lack of humans burning that caused the MIA?

Before somebody points out that there are many reasons why the climate warms and cools, answer me this.

If there are many events and we can not explain with certainty what caused the MWP and the MIA then why are we so absolutely certain we know why this warming is happening.

Another question is why does the solution seem to be to restrict advanced nations C02 output while letting less advanced nations output at an almost unchecked rate? How does trading carbon credits reduce the output of C02? I know that the carbon credits allow for no net change in C02 levels but wouldn't it be better if we had a reduction by not allowing the purchase of carbon credits? What do we really gain by allowing somebody the ability to sell what he would never use and allowing somebody that uses excess?

Why do all the solutions to the destruction of the human race and maybe the planet involve redistribution of wealth and very little curbing of C02 output?

[Prometheus]

So what was burned during the MWP that cause the higher temperature then? Was it the lack of humans burning that caused the MIA?

Before somebody points out that there are many reasons why the climate warms and cools, answer me this.

If there are many events and we can not explain with certainty what caused the MWP and the MIA then why are we so absolutely certain we know why this warming is happening.

Because we know that CO2 causes warming, we know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and we know that the lion's share of that increase in the last 100 years is caused by humans. Can you think of any reason at all why this simple calculus could be wrong? None of it's premises are in doubt.

Another question is why does the solution seem to be to restrict advanced nations C02 output while letting less advanced nations output at an almost unchecked rate?

Because the advanced nations are already outputting quite a lot more than undeveloped nations. They also have the economic wherewithal to actually mount a plausible attempt to solve the problem--most likely by economically motivating technological advances that undeveloped nations simply cannot even contemplate.


How does trading carbon credits reduce the output of C02?

By making emission of CO2 more expensive than not emitting it. It puts in place a framework within which the market will find the best solution. Conservatives really ought to be on board with this idea if they were thinking clearly at all.

I know that the carbon credits allow for no net change in C02 levels but wouldn't it be better if we had a reduction by not allowing the purchase of carbon credits? What do we really gain by allowing somebody the ability to sell what he would never use and allowing somebody that uses excess?

An outright ban on carbon emissions would make it more difficult for market forces to be brought to bear on the problem, would require even more government intervention and enforcement, and would cost a lot more. Plus it would do nothing to alleviate the historical injustice represented by developed nations having become developed precisely by causing the largest part of the problem; it would require those who contributed less to the problem to take a bigger hit, proportionate to the size of their economies, than the nations that caused the problem and reaped immense economic and social benefits by doing so.

Why do all the solutions to the destruction of the human race and maybe the planet involve redistribution of wealth and very little curbing of C02 output?

All economic activity involves redistribution of wealth. It's not the bogeyman it's made out to be.

[Ambrosia]

So what was burned during the MWP that cause the higher temperature then? Was it the lack of humans burning that caused the MIA?

Before somebody points out that there are many reasons why the climate warms and cools, answer me this.

If there are many events and we can not explain with certainty what caused the MWP and the MIA then why are we so absolutely certain we know why this warming is happening.

There are 3 sources of heat that can warm up our planet.

i) The sun, far and away the biggest and most important and in the last 25 years the net effect of the Sun on the earth has been a slight cooling if anything.

ii) Heat from beneath the earths surface that gets released by volcanic activity

iii) Heat from the buring of fuels on the surface, whether they be forest fires ignited by natural means, or fuel burnt to power human activity.

There's no other sources of heat as I understand it.

Going on the basis that human activity was negligible during the MWP either the sun has to account for the warming recorded then, or volcanic activity does. If you look back at solar activity for the time of the MWP it ws a period of high solar activity, ergo the sun caused the warming.

We are getting close to that warm now, and we are in a period of low solar activity.

Human activity has generated heat and also has changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The present atmostphere that has more CO2 in it means that more heat from the sun is retained by the planet, the CO2 that is there already isn't going anywhere for *hundreds* of years, unlike other stronger GHGs like say methane, which half a relatively short halflife.

The Greenhouse effect is a well understood thing, the science is in, it's a real effect and there are no credible scientists that say otherwise.

As the CO2 is going to stick around, when the sun climbs to a period of high solar activity, sending more heat our way that CO2 will still be here and it'll still be acting like a greenhouse. The more CO2 we dump into the atmosphere the bigger that problem is going to be when it comes around.

In order for CO2 *not* to be the reason for the present increased temperatures there must be some new, as yet undiscovered reason.

We know how much solar activity there is, we know how much volcanic activity there is, we know how much human activity there is, and there's more heat than those can account for.

As I understand it there needs to be something on the order of someone discovering a new law of physics for humans not to be responsible for the present increase in temperatures from CO2 release.

[CORed]

Studied to death for well over a century, in fact, and Astronomers SEE the effect.

Unfortunately, I see obfuscation coming from deniers frequently about whether CO2 even can cause warming. I've seen claims that CO2 is only being blamed because there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (of course to make this argument, you have to admit that CO2 is increasing as is temperature, which a lot of deniers don't want to do).

Making claims of this nature is an indication that the maker is either ignorant of the basic physics behind the greenhouse effect, or is engaging in deliberate disinformation (I suspect the latter is usually the case).

[bokonon]

Going by your lack of response to most of my earlier post I am assuming you agree that "rabid burning" is a reasonable adjective for human activity re fossil fuels in recent industrial history?
Not at all. The word "rabid" has scientific validity when it's used to speak about mammals infected with a specific virus. As you've used it, it's not a scientific term, but an emotional value judgement. Your offer of a graph showing fossil fuel consumption rising over time doesn't change that in the slightest. I could provide similar graphs for number of internet sites, production of integrated circuits, or visits to national parks. Numbers which rise over time don't make a thing "rabid".

"Rabid", as you've used it, implies irrational and out of control. I think the reasons for expending so much time and energy to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels are rational. Perhaps a miniscule fraction is consumed "rabidly" -- as an accelerant in an arson fire, for instance -- but I think most of it is burned purposefully and thoughtfully to satisfy valid human needs.

See now you asked me what scientific basis there was that weather patterns will shift
No. I asked you whether there was a scientific basis to think that rain would become rare in the places we've come to depend on it, since you claimed that due to global warming there was a good chance that rain wouldn't "fall onto areas used for farming, and where water is collected for distribution".

So cue a bunch of links to support this.
Which you promptly quote mined, and ignored much of the rest of what I wrote.
I quote mined them to show that they didn't support your claim very well at all. Having seen what your bunch of links contained, it's no mystery why you want to move the goal posts now.

When I initially said "warmer air = more water vapor = more rain" you responded that you thought my understanding was flawed, so perhaps my quote mining is the first time you'd actually read what those links contained.

I ignored most of the rest of what you wrote because I'd already spent quite enough time wading through the links. I've gotten to the point where I rarely click on macdoc's links, because most of them are either invalid 404-type timewasters or (like yours) don't really bolster the case for the point being argued. I'll probably do the same for yours too at this point, so if you think the site to which you're linking contains something relevant, I suggest you quote it in-thread and use the link for supporting context.

You are misunderstanding "more rain" it's not how much rain falls on average over a year, it's how and when it falls, if it all comes at once and then there are 10 months of no rain at all thats useless for agriculture.
Since the Egyptians were using irrigation thousands of years before the invention of the internet, I assume you've heard of it as well. Farmers have been dealing with rainy seasons since agriculture began; they're not something that just appeared with the advent of global warming.

If more rain falls, the problem is not "water shortage" but "water management." Of course, that might require more "rabid" consumption of fossil fuels, to make the concrete for dams and flood channels, and to fire the pumps that move it from where it's collected to where it's consumed.

Southern California, where I live, has been dealing with rainfall that comes primarily in January and February for decades. Maybe somebody should tell the farmers here that such water is "useless" for agriculture.

[BenBurch]

Unfortunately, I see obfuscation coming from deniers frequently about whether CO2 even can cause warming. I've seen claims that CO2 is only being blamed because there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (of course to make this argument, you have to admit that CO2 is increasing as is temperature, which a lot of deniers don't want to do).

Making claims of this nature is an indication that the maker is either ignorant of the basic physics behind the greenhouse effect, or is engaging in deliberate disinformation (I suspect the latter is usually the case).

Yes!

To amplify, the NIGHTTIME brightness of the sky at the wavelengths associated with CO2 re-emission has been observed to increase by Astronomers. This is a clear signal that CO2 is causing warming.

[AlBell]

Yes!

To amplify, the NIGHTTIME brightness of the sky at the wavelengths associated with CO2 re-emission has been observed to increase by Astronomers. This is a clear signal that CO2 is causing warming.
Now if someone could provide an accurate, verifiable, prediction of how much warming and when, the discussion would switch to amelioration cost/benefit.

And no, IPCC has not, will not, and as constituted cannot, provide 'how much' and 'when'. I'd also say it's uncertain if state-of-the art science can either.

In the meantime let's work together to decrease use of fossil fuels. I'd say peak oil and ice melting offers better selling points.

[jmarcure]

All economic activity involves redistribution of wealth. It's not the bogeyman it's made out to be.

Maybe I should have said forced redistribution of wealth.

[mhaze]

Yes!

To amplify, the NIGHTTIME brightness of the sky at the wavelengths associated with CO2 re-emission has been observed to increase by Astronomers. This is a clear signal that CO2 is causing warming.

Actually, not it doesn't. It would if the following conditions were true:

1. total net energy retained by grey body earth increased
(net of all inflows and outflows)

AND

2. the only spectra that increased in "brightness" were those of CO2

AND

3. temperature was defined or used in some meaningful way - which "atmospheric temperature" is not, or total heat of the planet was used as a measure instead of temperature

AND

4. the measurements as described were over sufficiently long time period to rule out decadal and multi decadal natural variability (which is substantial)

[CORed]

I mean, I say warmer air holds more water which leads to more rain, and Mac says I'm confused. He says you understand the science, and you've just provided two dozen links that say the same thing I said.


How warming will effect rainfall, or, perhaps more to the point, how it will effect agricultural productivity, is one of the most important questions, and also one of the most difficult to answer. While you are correct that higher temperatures will lead to more rainfall on a global basis, how that rainfall is distributed, in time and space, will almost certainly change, and the devil is in the details.

The fact that there is more rainfall worldwide does not necessarily mean that a particular area will get more rainfall. It might get less. If that area is an important farming area, it could be bad. Forty inches of rain a year might be good for agricultural productivity, but not if 30 inches of it falls in a two week period right at harvest or planting time.

On the general question of agricultural productivity, we may gain in colder areas, or in dry areas if they become wetter. We will likely loose low elevation areas to rising sea level, and some of that is good farmland. Areas that are now productive may lose rainfall, or the timing of rainfall may change to the detriment of productivity.

The problem with predicting this stuff is that there are really only two sources of information: Data from times in the past when the climate is warmer, and computer models.

The first source is incomplete, and, there is no guarantee that rainfall patterns 100 years in the future, from warming due to CO2, will be the same as those millions of years ago, from warming due to increased solar radiation when the continents were in different locations than they are now.

Computer modeling of the incredibly complex system that is the Earth's atmosphere and oceans necessarily involves a lot of assumptions, approximations and simplifications that may render the information gained incorrect.

[CORed]

Now if someone could provide an accurate, verifiable, prediction of how much warming and when, the discussion would switch to amelioration cost/benefit.

And no, IPCC has not, will not, and as constituted cannot, provide 'how much' and 'when'. I'd also say it's uncertain if state-of-the art science can either.

In the meantime let's work together to decrease use of fossil fuels. I'd say peak oil and ice melting offers better selling points.

Peak oil is of course, another reason to shift our energy source away from fossil fuels, maybe. The trouble is, there are two directions we can go. We can shift to lower quality fossil fuels, like coal oil shale and tar sands, or we can shift to nuclear and renewable energy. Coal, of course, is already widely used for power generation and other industrial applications, but, as oil supply declines, it may be used as a feedstock for transportation fuel, as may oil shale and tar sands. This could be bad for greenhouse gases, as the amount of CO2 generated per joule of usable energy would increas considerably. One of the most important things we can do is try to push the changeover as oil supplies decline to nuclear, solar and wind energy rather than dirty fossil fuels.

[Dancing David]

Maybe I should have said forced redistribution of wealth.

You mean like taxes to pay for the military industrial complex?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly. Hardcore ideologues you cannot reach, but most other people you can... This presumes 'most' other people haven't formed an opinion based on the 'side' they feel akin to. You needn't be a hard core ideologue to identify with the right or left politically and filter out the evidence and arguments which don't agree with your personal image of the world.

If your image of yourself includes driving a big truck, for example, you vote right, and you think environmentalists cost people jobs, you needn't be a hard core ideologue. You simply need to hold this view of yourself and the world and you are going to dismiss GW evidence without much consideration of it.


IF you take the right approach to the issue with them. It's much like the issue of evolution education: if you continually reinforce that it is an issue about science and not religious belief, more people will be receptive to learning about evolutionary science.While I completely agree with this, I'm not sure we have developed all those 'right approaches'. I think we can develop them, but we have a long way to go.

And one of the first groups we need to convince are many of the scientists themselves who think framing and marketing science means unethical persuasion tactics.

Likewise, if you take the issue of climate change in terms of the science, and not in terms of politics, more people who are ignorant will be receptive to being educated on the matter.

Knee-jerk "only-conservative-and-Republican-douchebags-deny-GW" type arguments are precisely the wrong way to go about educating the public, folks. That buys into the political framing of the argument that the hardcore ideologues want.Again, I agree, but it is more than simply framing the knowledge in apolitical language. Because you also have the problem the listener is not a blank slate and they filter the information you give them into credible and not credible categories before they even look at the data.

And when you add to this the extensive campaign Exxon and other financial interests conducted over many years denouncing the science, you have a serious disadvantage trying to promote the science. These guys have literally marketed science as corrupt and inaccurate. And that marketed message has had a serious negative impact.

[FarmallMTA]

First, the fun stuff. The famous 1940's actress Veronica Lake was totally babe-alicious. She's perhaps best remembered for her particular hairdo (in a WWII era film) called the Peek-a-boo. In the film her naturally straight blonde hair was waved at eye level so that one eye appeared obscured by her hair at certain camera angles. Movie publicists were struck by the look, causing them to emphasize those angles in publicity stills for the movie and for Miss Lake. veronica.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=16915&stc=1&d=1266950211)

Men loved the hot new sexy look and raved about it, making her a pinup sensation. Her hair wave became more pronounced as more publicity focused on it. Lake, Veronica_02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=16916&stc=1&d=1266950211)

Women copied the hairdo widely then also began to exaggerate it to such an extent that extreme waving actually did obscure sight out of one eye. Cartoonists later drew Jessica Rabbit with the hair wave in "Who saved Roger Rabbit" as a nod to the period fad... jessica-rabbit.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=16917&stc=1&d=1266950211)

The Peek-a-boo fad was so popular and became so extended that it became a new cultural norm, an evolved ubiquitous mindset subject to greater and greater exaggeration. Among women, it was "just what was done", a sort of "everybody does it" default.

Now the bad news. The fad went to such an extreme that it quickly became nonsensical. Women wanted their highly exaggerated Peek-a-boos to such an extent that it became a hazard in War Production factories. Her impact on society was so dramatic, that during the war, she was forced by the government to temporarily change her peek-a-boo hair-do after women in factories were becoming injured when their long locks were catching in assembly-line machinery.

http://www.tcmdb.com/participant.jsp?participantId=107416

The women working on the assembly lines weren't dumb. They weren't suicidal. They weren't trying to reduce efficiency in the factories. They were just sucked into a mental thing that caused them to unthinkingly adopt and exaggerate an element of insignificance and turn it into a ridiculous menace to common sense and good practices.

This, then is the nature of the human mind. And I say it has largely driven first the scientific fad that grew out of minor theoretical observations that CO2 has mass that can hold heat (true, since all mass holds heat). Then the sensationalist media furthered the storm through alarmism, feckless exaggeration further until the story developed legs of it's own, becoming a broader fad. Then opportunistic and cynical politicians, some well known, jumped on the spreading fad and turned it into a self-serving political fad. Until now we have finally the near success at a new social norm: an organic "understanding" that man has actually overridden enormous natural forces and increased the temperature of the planet to dangerous and disasterous levels such that calamity is believed to be upon us.

Good, decent, and otherwise sensible people have bought into the fad to such an extent that it is in danger of sucking the economic and technological hair of the greatest Epoch of Mankind yet... into a destructive conveyor belt of Luddite anti-technology hysteria and environmental nihilism. It's gotten that bad.

As the old Chinese curse promises, these are truly interesting times we live in. I only hope that the good, decent and sensible people snap out of it before much time, effort, treasure, and potential for the future is expended while real problems are ignored and grow much worse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Someone pointed to the alarmist nature of the AGW message being the reason. I tend to agree. It was true for me 15 years ago and after reading these threads of the last few days I think little has changed since then. The message has been marketed by the deniers as 'alarmist'. They repeat that charge all the time. Just this morning Hannity on Fox News made the statement the snow in Houston proved the "alarmists" wrong.

The problem is the term "alarmist" can be applied to factual predictions and to maximum predictions or anything for that matter. So what is alarmist and was is factual? If the glacier on Kilimanjaro melts, that is the main supply of water for millions of people. Millions of people will be displaced for every foot of sea level rise. Is it alarmist to say those problems are serious?


It also seems a little self serving as well. It's as if the warmers want to cement their place in history saving the planet from humankind. "My generation made and then fixed the biggest problem in the history of the planet". It seems to me the issue of what to do isn't as important as getting people to admit it's a huge issue. It reminds me of two kids fighting on the playground. The warmers have the deniers in a headlock shouting "Say it! Say-It's getting warmer and it's all my fault. Just admit it and I'll let you go". Of course the deniers have dug themselves in and aren't admitting anything.....Your view this is what motivates AGW science disseminators is really twisted. This belief creates a filter for dismissing credible science.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then how come so many deniers here on this forum seem to persist so hard in trying to convince everyone they are right, creating exhaustively long threads and huge debates that often degenerate to childish insults and other forms of immature, irrational, emotional, and ultimately useless and even harmful communication, despite everyone's attempts to try valiantly and amazingly to help get them to, and give them what they need to, fill their ignorance with knowledge? Unless those aren't the "average" denier.

This is an interesting phenomena on this board. The 911 truthers are emotionally invested. This leads to similar "exhaustively long threads and huge debates that often degenerate to childish insults and other forms of immature, irrational, emotional, and ultimately useless and even harmful communication". So it would appear an emotional investment in their 'cause' might be behind the recurring threads of AGW deniers as well.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm interested that no-one seems to be drawing conclusions about AGW being a threat to people's "love of their cars".

There's an argument that goes like this:

1. Post WWII industry geared up to make cars, but sales were very low, as generally people didn't see a need for private cars...

2. The advertising industry created a need for cars by associating cars with the following themes: car = freedom; car = sexual success; and, car = adulthood.

3. These messages have been consistently used for 50+ years.

So now, when a person person hears people talking about making changes to reduce AGW, some people see this (at a very low level) as:

OMG!!! They are going to remove my [freedom | sexual appendage |adulthood]!!!

Just a thought.

PS. I think I came across the above argument in a book called "Divorce your car." but it was a long time ago, so I can't be sure.This is a bit oversimplified. Our infrastructure in most of the US is now designed around cars and trucks.

It's more than imaginary need.

[Skeptic Ginger]

For me, it's the lack of substantial evidence. I went to school and took science courses. The teachers wisely (IMHO) taught us not to come to conclusions based upon emotion, but upon evidence.
I'm not a denier (that is an emotional/political term used here by the non-critical thinkers). I'm a skeptic.
Show me the evidence that it is indeed man-made and I'll be on board.
No one on this board, or elseware for that matter has done that for me(It probably may be that I'm limited in my ability to understand it from the arguments presented here).This post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5646627#post5646627), and this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5646693#post5646693) demonstrate you've likely seen the evidence but dismissed it.

[mhaze]

The message has been marketed by the deniers as 'alarmist'. They repeat that charge all the time. ....

You mean that the "deniers" NOTICED the "alarmism", and commented on it.

Just this morning Hannity on Fox News made the statement the snow in Houston proved the "alarmists" wrong.....

In saying this, you are either repeating or engaging in willful misrepresentation, eg lying.

To correct the statement, and show the misrepresentation, we simply phrase it thus:

"Just this morning, Hannity on Fox News joked about the snow in Houston..."

[Prometheus]

Maybe I should have said forced redistribution of wealth.

What's forced about paying the real cost to society for what you consume, rather than expecting everyone else to split part of the cost of your activity? If you don't want to pay the cost of cleaning up your pollution, you have every right not to pollute.

[BenBurch]

What's forced about paying the real cost to society for what you consume, rather than expecting everyone else to split part of the cost of your activity? If you don't want to pay the cost of cleaning up your pollution, you have every right not to pollute.

If Coal Companies had to pay for what coal mining and burning does to people, we'd stop burning coal pretty fast, and that is EVEN if you omit CO2.

[Furcifer]

Your view this is what motivates AGW science disseminators is really twisted. This belief creates a filter for dismissing credible science.

Dismissing the science? Or dismissing the alarmist conclusion of the science? I think you probably mean the latter. Anyone dismissing the rise in temperature or a marked increase in CO2 and other green house gases since the industrial revolution can't be familiar with the products of combustion.

I'm skeptical of the notion that global warming will result in unmanageable change in climactic conditions. The fact that the AGW proponents seem to be pursuing this makes me wonder what their motivation is. As long as they continue to do this (at least 15 years in my experience) they will make it hard for the rest of the more rational population inact change. It sets up two dramtically different sides, where the doomsday scenario is countered by the "If that's the case why do anything?".

I'm not sure how anyone can feel comfotable making projections about how climatactic changes might affect weather patterns in the future when we have such terrible results predicting the weather from day to day?

[Ambrosia]

I'm not sure how anyone can feel comfotable making projections about how climatactic changes might affect weather patterns in the future when we have such terrible results predicting the weather from day to day?

Spin a fair 00 roulette wheel 1000000 times.

I can confidently predict that you will spin the number 11 about 26300 times.

I cannot predict how many times you'll spin a number 11 if you only spin the wheel 100 times.

[Ambrosia]

Not at all. The word "rabid" has scientific validity when it's used to speak about mammals infected with a specific virus. As you've used it, it's not a scientific term, but an emotional value judgement. ...
"Rabid", as you've used it, implies irrational and out of control.

According to my dictionary rabid is an adjective which has for one of it's meanings "extremely enthusiastic"


I think the reasons for expending so much time and energy to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels are rational.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point then, there is much about the present consumption of stuff thats prevalent in todays worl that I find completely irrational, but thats another thread in itself.

No. I asked you whether there was a scientific basis to think that rain would become rare in the places we've come to depend on it

I misunderstood your question then, however if climate patterns are going to change, and are in the process of changing presently, then it's odds on that some areas presently getting rains that are depended on will stop getting rains altogether, or get unusable rain. Think sahara desert, or American dustbowl. Both of those examples are from natural causes, we certainly don't need to be adding more reasons for climate patterns to move about the place.


I quote mined them to show that they didn't support your claim very well at all.

Yes they do, I'm stating that climate patterns will shift in the future as a result of GW.

perhaps my quote mining is the first time you'd actually read what those links contained.

er no. I do read stuff I link to before I link to it. Kind of helps a little to do that when you are linking to supporting evidence.

I ignored most of the rest of what you wrote

Thanks for that.

[Furcifer]

Spin a fair 00 roulette wheel 1000000 times.

I can confidently predict that you will spin the number 11 about 26300 times.

I cannot predict how many times you'll spin a number 11 if you only spin the wheel 100 times.

I'm not seeing the correlation here? Are you saying the science of global warming has a statistical probability associated with what it predicts? There aren't exactly 38 possible outcomes of increased CO2 levels all with an equal probability of happening.

[lomiller]

I'm not sure how anyone can feel comfotable making projections about how climatactic changes might affect weather patterns in the future when we have such terrible results predicting the weather from day to day?

The science doesn't change simply because you don't understand it. What you describe is a textbook chaotic system, unpredictable in the sort term but with eminently predictable overall patterns.

[DogB]

I'm not seeing the correlation here? Are you saying the science of global warming has a statistical probability associated with what it predicts? There aren't exactly 38 possible outcomes of increased CO2 levels all with an equal probability of happening.

He’s suggesting that noisy signals are easier to quantify when you use a large enough sample size so that noise effects cancel out. Personally I’m not certain that it’s a good analogy for climate but that’s just me.

[lomiller]

I'm not seeing the correlation here? Are you saying the science of global warming has a statistical probability associated with what it predicts?

In an chaotic system the value at any given time can be treated as a random distribution around an attractor. The exact realization will not be difficult to compute but the behavior of the attractor will not.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ambrosia

Spin a fair 00 roulette wheel 1000000 times.

I can confidently predict that you will spin the number 11 about 26300 times.

I cannot predict how many times you'll spin a number 11 if you only spin the wheel 100 times.

Yes you can .. you can predict it will occur 2-3 times (2.6 to be precise.. but that’s not a round number)

The prediction is easy.

What you meant to say is the prediction is MUCH less likely to be correct that the one for 1 million spins.

This is a poor analogy anyway because the odds are already known.

In Climate science the odds are not know the parameters are not known and the models include pre-conceived reasons for warming.

[Furcifer]

The science doesn't change simply because you don't understand it. What you describe is a textbook chaotic system, unpredictable in the sort term but with eminently predictable overall patterns.

Yes it is indeed predictable, the average global temperature may rise by several degrees. Nobody can know what the effect of that change will have. There really only two outcomes, things will be better or things will be worse. I'm not sure how you can weight these outcomes? Seems 50/50, especially over the long run. You really can't break it down year by year either. You have to consider it over at least 100 years.

[Carefulplease]

In an chaotic system the value at any given time can be treated as a random distribution around an attractor. The exact realization will not be difficult to compute but the behavior of the attractor will not.

Lomiller obviously meant to say: "The exact realization will be difficult to compute but..."

[Carefulplease]

There are 3 sources of heat that can warm up our planet.

i) The sun, far and away the biggest and most important and in the last 25 years the net effect of the Sun on the earth has been a slight cooling if anything.

ii) Heat from beneath the earths surface that gets released by volcanic activity

iii) Heat from the buring of fuels on the surface, whether they be forest fires ignited by natural means, or fuel burnt to power human activity.

I agree with much everything you say. I just want to note that the heat released by volcanic activity seems negligible. Volcanic eruptions rather have a marked cooling effect (for a couple years) through releasing aerosols that reflect shortwave solar radiations back up into space.

Likewise, the heat generated from burning fossil fuels can't compare with the heat accumulated from the transient flux imbalance caused by the resulting increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. The effect of the former is temporary while the latter results in increased surface temperature for centuries to come (until CO2 concentrations are brought down again through ocean absorption).

[Carefulplease]

Actually, not it doesn't. It would if the following conditions were true:

1. total net energy retained by grey body earth increased
(net of all inflows and outflows)

AND

2. the only spectra that increased in "brightness" were those of CO2

AND [...]

I'm sot so sure where your doubts lay. You've formerly expressed doubts about the IPCC estimated range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C). Do you also doubt common estimates of CO2's forcing? Or do you agree with the estimates but believe other mechanisms account for compensating negative forcings?

[Belz...]

What you meant to say is the prediction is MUCH less likely to be correct that the one for 1 million spins.

This is a poor analogy anyway because the odds are already known.

Actually I thought that was why it was a GOOD analogy.

[a_unique_person]

In Climate science the odds are not know the parameters are not known and the models include pre-conceived reasons for warming.

Yeah, it's called physics. They also include preconceived ideas for cooling.

[mhaze]

I'm sot so sure where your doubts lay. You've formerly expressed doubts about the IPCC estimated range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C). Do you also doubt common estimates of CO2's forcing? Or do you agree with the estimates but believe other mechanisms account for compensating negative forcings?

Where my doubts lay? Do you refer to where I pointed out where the IPCC's doubts lay?

As for you general drift, all I've done is point out the four factors that would make the "co2 forcing" argument correct. In isolation, as stated, it is not correct.

Seemed like it was time someone did that, since it is so often repeated.

There are other issues of course.

[mhaze]

... the latter results in increased surface temperature for centuries to come (until CO2 concentrations are brought down again through ocean absorption).Centuries? Really? Or a few years,depending on which published and peer review article one has recently read.

There's no major agreement or "scientific consensus" that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries.

[Ambrosia]

Centuries? Really? Or a few years,depending on which published and peer review article one has recently read.

There's no major agreement or "scientific consensus" that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries.

To which peer reviewed papers do you refer?

[mhaze]

To which peer reviewed papers do you refer?For example,

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

and a later revision that changed the estimate somewhat, but we are still talking decades, not centuries.

[lomiller]

Yes it is indeed predictable, the average global temperature may rise by several degrees. Nobody can know what the effect of that change will have. There really only two outcomes, things will be better or things will be worse. I'm not sure how you can weight these outcomes? Seems 50/50, especially over the long run. You really can't break it down year by year either. You have to consider it over at least 100 years.

I distrust people whose response to published science is to say “no one can possibly know that”.

There really only two outcomes, things will be better or things will be worse.

No, there is only one outcome. Things will be different, and all the technology, ecosystems and agriculture that have adapted to one set of conditions will need wait for similar niches to develop someplace else. This means centuries or millennia of trying to survive in a sub-par climate as the new niches develop.

[Ambrosia]

For example,

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

and a later revision that changed the estimate somewhat, but we are still talking decades, not centuries.

Got any more?

as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question
must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its
key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it
might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might
stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.

If this study is accurate it's good news, as a bunch of the more dire possibilities are way less likely to happen. However in his own paper the author states that this analysis is based on a simple model, and that more work using more complex and thus more accurate models is needed.

This was 3 years ago, has any other work along these lines been done? do you have other supporting evidence to bolster this papers findings?

[FarmallMTA]

And the rats are leaving that sinking AGW ship. Fast.

[Ambrosia]

And the rats are leaving that sinking AGW ship. Fast.

Got any useful stuff to add to the debate?

[fsol]

Got any more?



If this study is accurate it's good news, as a bunch of the more dire possibilities are way less likely to happen. However in his own paper the author states that this analysis is based on a simple model, and that more work using more complex and thus more accurate models is needed.

This was 3 years ago, has any other work along these lines been done? do you have other supporting evidence to bolster this papers findings?

As to whether it's accurate or not I'd check out the comments on the paper.

[FarmallMTA]

Got any useful stuff to add to the debate?

I just did. do you?

[mhaze]

Got any more?



If this study is accurate it's good news, as a bunch of the more dire possibilities are way less likely to happen. However in his own paper the author states that this analysis is based on a simple model, and that more work using more complex and thus more accurate models is needed.

This was 3 years ago, has any other work along these lines been done? do you have other supporting evidence to bolster this papers findings?Yes.

Although I'm not sure it's "good news" - rather my opinion is that the "centuries" phase is more of the alarmist nonsense. That they've tried to hijack the middle ground is not in dispute.

I'll see what else may be laying around.

[macdoc]

hmmmm - better keep pumping out that S02 :rolleyes:

. The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to
2 K [O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002; Hansen, 2004].

Acknowledgment. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program (Office
of Science, OBER) under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

:garfield:

[DogB]

No, there is only one outcome. Things will be different, and all the technology, ecosystems and agriculture that have adapted to one set of conditions will need wait for similar niches to develop someplace else. This means centuries or millennia of trying to survive in a sub-par climate as the new niches develop.

You seem to be assuming that changes cause sub optimal conditions in current niches. Do you have any reason to believe that?

[mhaze]

One suspects that if changing climate caused suboptimal conditions in one area, but superoptimal conditions in twenty, MacDoc would be screaming just as loud.

Or louder...

[Carefulplease]

For example,

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

and a later revision that changed the estimate somewhat, but we are still talking decades, not centuries.

There is no attempt to establish excess atmospheric CO2 half-life in this paper. I only see a claim that were emissions to stop completely then there would be (short term) minimal decrease in surface temperatures "because of the long lifetime (ca 100 years) associated with excess CO2". I am unsure how "lifetime" is defined in relation to half-life. (The latter ought not to be confused with residence time, of course, which concerns individual molecules and not excess mass).

Looking further into the matter, it seems that I may have overestimated the half-life of excess CO2. It ranges from 19 to 92 years according to the following paper, depending on the nature of terrestrial sinks. So, thanks for expressing skepticism.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994/93GB03392.shtml

[mhaze]

There is no attempt to establish excess atmospheric CO2 half-life in this paper. I only see a claim that were emissions to stop completely then there would be (short term) minimal decrease in surface temperatures "because of the long lifetime (ca 100 years) associated with excess CO2". I am unsure how "lifetime" is defined in relation to half-life. (The latter ought not to be confused with residence time, of course, which concerns individual molecules and not excess mass).

Looking further into the matter, it seems that I may have overestimated the half-life of excess CO2. It ranges from 19 to 92 years according to the following paper, depending on the nature of terrestrial sinks. So, thanks for expressing skepticism.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994/93GB03392.shtmlsure, of course I'll go for 5 years.:)

But 19 to 92 sounds like it has mainstream credentials from somewhere. The wide range is in fact what makes it very difficult to say "generally true" things about the matter.

[Carefulplease]

Where my doubts lay? Do you refer to where I pointed out where the IPCC's doubts lay?

As for you general drift, all I've done is point out the four factors that would make the "co2 forcing" argument correct. In isolation, as stated, it is not correct.

Seemed like it was time someone did that, since it is so often repeated.

There are other issues of course.

I don't know what you take the "co2 forcing argument" to be, so I don't know what you take to be incorrect. My understanding is that CO2 forcing results from changes in radiative transfer properties that atmospheric CO2 cause that have been reasonably well understood for 50 years now. This understanding yielded radiative models that predicted quite well changes in satellite measurements of terrestrial longwave spectra and surface measurements of sky longwave spectra. It is difficult to account for these observed effects and revise very much the CO2 forcing estimates unless someone can come out with some alternate theory for explaining the observed spectra.

[Carefulplease]

sure, of course I'll go for 5 years.:)

But 19 to 92 sounds like it has mainstream credentials from somewhere. The wide range is in fact what makes it very difficult to say "generally true" things about the matter.

Claims that excess CO2 half-life only is on the order of a few years only have been advanced by amateur scientists who have confused half-life with residence time, I believe. So, you can't quite go with then unless you also confuse both concepts or you believe new terrestrial biomass will suddenly soak up on the order of 10ppmv/year (in excess of the baseline rate) of atmospheric CO2 just to thank us for having stopped all emissions.

[Cactus Wren]

Fred Clark, at Slacktivist, offered a very good answer (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/02/all-are-responsible.html) to the question in the OP:
Snowfall in America brings with it, inevitably, a blizzard of "jokes" about the alleged absurdity of global warming. All of these jokes have two things in common: 1) they mention Al Gore, and 2) they're not actually funny.

Being funny isn't the point of these jokes, so it's not surprising that they fail to achieve funniness. What is surprising, though, is that so many people feel compelled to tell "jokes" that aren't actually jokes -- jokes that neither attempt nor achieve funniness. What is the point of such "jokes"? They're like cars without wheels -- why on earth would anyone bother making such a thing?

I have a theory. This is just speculation, and I might be wrong. But then again, I might be right.

The great philosopher and activist Abraham Joshua Heschel said, "Few are guilty; all are responsible."

That's a wise and important distinction, but it's also an eminently practical one. The good rabbi, I suspect, arrived at this formulation partly as a way of inoculating against the otherwise inevitable knee-jerk defensive response which prevented anyone from hearing his claim of inescapable responsibility. Before arriving at this statement, I imagine he experienced the dishearteningly repetitive conversation that would otherwise unfailingly ensue:

"All are responsible."
"Well I'm not guilty."
"I'm talking about responsibility, not ..."
"You can't blame me!"
"Blame isn't the issue here, we're ..."
"You're just as guilty as I am!"
"But the point was ..."
"Al Gore is just as guilty as I am!"

This seems to be the depressingly predictable result of any invitation to, argument for or assertion of collective responsibility. "Responsibility" is heard as or translated into "guilt" and thus produces an instinctive, angry rejection of blame that, in turn, becomes an instinctive, angry embrace of irresponsibility.
Making such an explicit, preemptive distinction between guilt and responsibility may be necessary in part due to an ambiguity of language. The question "Who is responsible?" can mean many things, among them, "Who is to blame?" Talk of responsibility is thus frustratingly likely to prompt the denial of blame which, in turn, becomes a denial of responsibility which, further, becomes itself a kind of blameworthy irresponsibility.

And that, sadly, is where we seem to be in the matter of America's inadequate response to the crisis of climate change.

It might be helpful to look at this through the lens of a textbook example from Ethics 101: The Drowning Stranger.

"A man is drowning near the end of the dock," the professor says. "What is your responsibility?"

"I didn't push him in!" the student says, with abrupt, vehement anger.

From the professor's perspective, this anger is strangely out of place, but for the student it seems justified. The student, instinctively, heard the question of responsibility as an accusation of blame. And, for what it's worth, the student's statement is correct. He didn't push the hypothetical stranger off of the hypothetical dock.

The problem, of course, is that the student's response -- standing by as the stranger drowns while adamantly insisting on his blamelessness -- is itself so irresponsible as to incur the very guilt the student set out to deny. Very well, he didn't push the man in, but he did just stand there and watch the man drown without lifting a finger to save him.

First let's get the poor hypothetical stranger out of the water and then we can deal with the question of who was to blame for causing his predicament.

[Furcifer]

I distrust people whose response to published science is to say “no one can possibly know that”.



No, there is only one outcome. Things will be different, and all the technology, ecosystems and agriculture that have adapted to one set of conditions will need wait for similar niches to develop someplace else. This means centuries or millennia of trying to survive in a sub-par climate as the new niches develop.

Yet you seem prepared to accept just that. In 15 years I haven't seen any solid proof that global warming will lead to a millenia of "sub-par climate". It's my understanding there hasn't been any consensus on this. Climatology seems to remain an inexact science.

What kind of bubble do you live in? It's 100F in the summer and -40F in the winter here. We have some of the most fertile land on the planet here. There are many non indigenous plants and animals that thrive in this climate. We seem to survive just fine in our "sub-par" climate.

I'm more than willing to reduce green house gases. It's an obvious result of our increased energy consumption on this planet. We have the technology to reduce it's production and we need to implement it as soon as possible. But please knock off the doomsday crap. This planet has gone through numerous cycles in it's 8 billion or so years for whatever reasons and it will continue to do so long after we are gone. If this represents a new chapter in its varied history so be it. It's certainly not the last one.

[a_unique_person]

Yet you seem prepared to accept just that. In 15 years I haven't seen any solid proof that global warming will lead to a millenia of "sub-par climate". It's my understanding there hasn't been any consensus on this. Climatology seems to remain an inexact science.

What kind of bubble do you live in? It's 100F in the summer and -40F in the winter here. We have some of the most fertile land on the planet here. There are many non indigenous plants and animals that thrive in this climate. We seem to survive just fine in our "sub-par" climate.

I'm more than willing to reduce green house gases. It's an obvious result of our increased energy consumption on this planet. We have the technology to reduce it's production and we need to implement it as soon as possible. But please knock off the doomsday crap. This planet has gone through numerous cycles in it's 8 billion or so years for whatever reasons and it will continue to do so long after we are gone. If this represents a new chapter in its varied history so be it. It's certainly not the last one.

Sure, the rocks will always be here, despite the mass extinction events throughout history. Life adapts to it's environment, one of the main features of that environment being the climate.

[macdoc]

3 body
What kind of bubble do you live in? It's 100F in the summer and -40F in the winter here. We have some of the most fertile land on the planet here. There are many non indigenous plants and animals that thrive in this climate. We seem to survive just fine in our "sub-par" climate.

I'm more than willing to reduce green house gases. It's an obvious result of our increased energy consumption on this planet. We have the technology to reduce it's production and we need to implement it as soon as possible. But please knock off the doomsday crap. This planet has gone through numerous cycles in it's 8 billion or so years for whatever reasons and it will continue to do so long after we are gone. If this represents a new chapter in its varied history so be it. It's certainly not the last one.

You are the one living in a bubble..climate change is about more frequent extreme excursions

The "bubble" was the Holocene where the global swing was +/- 1.5 c - we are heading well outside of that with most thinking 4-6C by 2010 and others seeing 4C mid century.

It only takes ONE extended heatwave to wipe out a crop - doesn't matter if the rest of the season is fine.

it takes only ONE extended intensity rain event to flood a city ( see Bombay 2005 )

More extreme events more often and much of the planet is on the thin edge of being able to feed itself.
and then there is the hydrology issues that are starting to hit now...

You say your swing is 100 down to -40 so you live in the US - if the 80 degree days come in Feb or March you are **********...if the snow pack is 50% higher in the some areas of the midwest ....100 year floods come every decade...
Unstable weather with extended extremes is a feature of climate change and we've seen NOTHING yet compared to what the future holds with BAU.

Your region is heading not to be able to grow wheat in the next few decades....you gonna move to Alaska where the wheat zone will be for the US.??

The issue is the civilization we built in a benign climate of the holocene....that's over. We've altered it and continue to in geologic eyeblnk...C02 is higher than it's been in 15 million years and the consequences are yet to be felt due to cryosphere and hydrosphere buffering...

It will be interesting times....but of course you know better than the climate science community....

the only issue there is when and how bad.....

and so far most of the scenarios have come into play sooner than anticipated especially in the North..:garfield:

[Furcifer]

Sure, the rocks will always be here, despite the mass extinction events throughout history. Life adapts to it's environment, one of the main features of that environment being the climate.

Exactly, and the climates we've already adpated too vary much more than anything global warming can throw at us.

I think there are too many people spoiled by their mild climates already. At this time of year I always consider braving the tornadoes and hurricanes in exchange for some warm weather.

[Belz...]

I distrust people whose response to published science is to say “no one can possibly know that”.

I particularily "like" people who then make the odds 50/50, as if to give some weight to their preferred outcome.

[mhaze]

Fred Clark, at Slacktivist, offered a very good answer (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/02/all-are-responsible.html) to the question in the OP:

The analogy would be "But he's only in water up to his ankles! He's not drowning!"

[Furcifer]

I particularily "like" people who then make the odds 50/50, as if to give some weight to their preferred outcome.

Hmmm...I'm confused. I didn't do well in stats, but I swear 50/50 isn't weighted one way or the other?

This whole AGW thing is ridiculous isn't it? It's just a source of endless debate. I've been drawn into it like a moth to the flame. All I can tell you Belz is that 15 years ago the AGW crowd was claiming the exact same things. If some of them were to be believed the ocean levels would already have risen a foot, the hurricane season would be just finishing up and the mid-west would be preparing for it's 5th year of drought. So you"ll have to forgive me from being just a little bit skeptical of the "data". You'll also have to forgive my lack of surprise at recents events. It's no wonder datas been faked. There has to be quite a few people with egg on their face. Things aren't exactly working out like they predicted now are they? Some of them have to be getting pretty desperate to prove their earlier conjecture.

[elbe]

Hmmm...I'm confused. I didn't do well in stats, but I swear 50/50 isn't weighted one way or the other?

It's not, but if one of the two options is actually less than 50%, then treating it as such is adding weight to it.

[Furcifer]

It's not, but if one of the two options is actually less than 50%, then treating it as such is adding weight to it.

Yep. if.

[elbe]

Yep. if.

Complex systems are unlikely to produce 50/50 odds for possible outcomes.

[Geckko]

It's not, but if one of the two options is actually less than 50%, then treating it as such is adding weight to it.

We will take it that you aren't a Bayesian then...

[Furcifer]

Complex systems are unlikely to produce 50/50 odds for possible outcomes.

better/worse

[elbe]

We will take it that you aren't a Bayesian then...

I'd think that for practical purposes making uninformed assumptions about outcomes isn't very useful. Gather as much info as possible and try to be realistic before working on statistical liklihoods.

Of course that's just my opinion.

[Belz...]

Hmmm...I'm confused. I didn't do well in stats, but I swear 50/50 isn't weighted one way or the other?

Precisely! This "tactic" is often used to "show" that one option isn't better than the other. So when one of the two really has next to no chances of being correct, getting an upgrade to 50% not only gives it a huge boost in apparent likelihood, but it also demotes the much more likely option to an equal footing. In other words it's sleigh of hand, but it doesn't fool us.

This whole AGW thing is ridiculous isn't it? It's just a source of endless debate.

I've been drawn into it like a moth to the flame. All I can tell you Belz is that 15 years ago the AGW crowd was claiming the exact same things. If some of them were to be believed the ocean levels would already have risen a foot, the hurricane season would be just finishing up and the mid-west would be preparing for it's 5th year of drought.

Alarmists aren't the best source for your information on the opposition.

It's no wonder datas been faked.

Liars aren't the best source for your information on AGW denial, either.

There has to be quite a few people with egg on their face. Things aren't exactly working out like they predicted now are they? Some of them have to be getting pretty desperate to prove their earlier conjecture.

You are speculating as to the agenda of thousands of people, without proof, and claiming that the scientific community worldwide is engaging in a massive conspiracy that would defy most established social precedents ? There's a whole section of the forum for that.

[elbe]

better/worse

Objective? Subjective? How do you define both? I fail to see how that's automatically 50/50.

Typing from my phone isn't as easy as I'd hoped.

[mhaze]

....Alarmists aren't the best source for your information on the opposition.....

No, they certainly are not, are they?

So we don't we all just agree to tell them all to STFU?

[Furcifer]

Precisely! This "tactic" is often used to "show" that one option isn't better than the other. So when one of the two really has next to no chances of being correct, getting an upgrade to 50% not only gives it a huge boost in apparent likelihood, but it also demotes the much more likely option to an equal footing. In other words it's sleigh of hand, but it doesn't fool us.

You are speculating as to the agenda of thousands of people, without proof, and claiming that the scientific community worldwide is engaging in a massive conspiracy that would defy most established social precedents ? There's a whole section of the forum for that.

Whoah whaoh, I'm not saying there is any "conspiracy". I'm saying it isn't surprising to find someone might fudge the numbers at this point. Certainly not a lot.

Second, you talk about weighing but haven't considered the extreme exaggerations on the AGW side skewing the range of data. We've got the denial side that seems to saying things stay about the way they are, then you've got the other side saying it's leading to an ELE. Do you see what I'm getting at? There's no upper bound on the AGW side of this so the data is skewed in it's favour. I'm not sure how you go about weighing something like this?

[Furcifer]

Objective? Subjective? How do you define both? I fail to see how that's automatically 50/50.

Typing from my phone isn't as easy as I'd hoped.

Ha, tell me about it, I've been doing it for over a week now :D

Let's talk net effect. Why do I always here about droughts and ice ages and the rest of some movie I saw with the kid from Donnie Darko? Nothing good will come from an increase in temperature? It's all hurricanes and tornadoes? I'm not buying it. There's usually some sort of balance and yet AGW seems convinced there's nothing good to come. They've been saying that for 15 years and nothing has manifested. The glaciers have melted a bit around the edges? Oh nooz!

[elbe]

Ha, tell me about it, I've been doing it for over a week now :D

Let's talk net effect. Why do I always here about droughts and ice ages and the rest of some movie I saw with the kid from Donnie Darko? Nothing good will come from an increase in temperature? It's all hurricanes and tornadoes? I'm not buying it. There's usually some sort of balance and yet AGW seems convinced there's nothing good to come. They've been saying that for 15 years and nothing has manifested. The glaciers have melted a bit around the edges? Oh nooz!

It's not like the world is going end, or even human life, but we do risk change. Change can be good and bad, obviously, but changes in regional weather can have dramatic, unforseen consequences. Can, not will. For us, stability is better in the long run and we should be warry of actions that can disrupt that. Sure, if its true and the changes are good then we're in the better, but that's a gamble we should't be quick to take.

But who knows. While I certainly believe we can impact our climate, we can't control it. In the long run we'll have to adapt, but humans are pretty good at that at least.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean that the "deniers" NOTICED the "alarmism", and commented on it.



In saying this, you are either repeating or engaging in willful misrepresentation, eg lying.

To correct the statement, and show the misrepresentation, we simply phrase it thus:

"Just this morning, Hannity on Fox News joked about the snow in Houston..."Did you see the clip? He was not joking. Does it bother you Hannity has been expressing this ignorance for weeks?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fred Clark, at Slacktivist, offered a very good answer (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/02/all-are-responsible.html) to the question in the OP:Snowfall in America brings with it, inevitably, a blizzard of "jokes" about the alleged absurdity of global warming. All of these jokes have two things in common: 1) they mention Al Gore, and 2) they're not actually funny.

Being funny isn't the point of these jokes, so it's not surprising that they fail to achieve funniness. What is surprising, though, is that so many people feel compelled to tell "jokes" that aren't actually jokes -- jokes that neither attempt nor achieve funniness. What is the point of such "jokes"? They're like cars without wheels -- why on earth would anyone bother making such a thing?This seems to answer what mhaze was claiming that I replied to above.

I'm not sure sarcasm is the same kind of joke mhaze implied. Does Hannity believe the local weather directly measures the climate or not? I think that is what Hannity believes. But I can't read his mind. Neither can mhaze read Hannity's mind. Everyone will have to judge for themselves.

[mhaze]

Did you see the clip? He was not joking. Does it bother you Hannity has been expressing this ignorance for weeks?No, it does not bother me that you underestimate your opponents.

[CORed]

Did you see the clip? He was not joking. Does it bother you Hannity has been expressing this ignorance for weeks?

Hannity has been expressing many sorts of ignorance for years.

[Belz...]

No, they certainly are not, are they?

So we don't we all just agree to tell them all to STFU?

People who deny reality aren't very reliable, either. Mhaze, that's you. So perhaps we should all agree to tell YOU to STFU ?

[Belz...]

Second, you talk about weighing but haven't considered the extreme exaggerations on the AGW side skewing the range of data.

Examples ?

[Furcifer]

It's not like the world is going end, or even human life, but we do risk change. Change can be good and bad, obviously, but changes in regional weather can have dramatic, unforseen consequences. Can, not will. For us, stability is better in the long run and we should be warry of actions that can disrupt that. Sure, if its true and the changes are good then we're in the better, but that's a gamble we should't be quick to take.

But who knows. While I certainly believe we can impact our climate, we can't control it. In the long run we'll have to adapt, but humans are pretty good at that at least.

I think we're on the same page. It could be bad but we will survive, it could be good and we will thrive.

I'm really inclined to believe it will be good. At least for the most part. I'm not going to preach that to anyone because I just don't know. At the same time is could get worse. I'll spend my time reducing carbon and supporting the efforts to do so while people argue about what might happen. We know we can't keep burning stuff forever and that just seems seperate from the issue of what damage we've already done. Hopefully within the next decade we can begin reversing the trend.

[elbe]

I think we're on the same page. It could be bad but we will survive, it could be good and we will thrive.

I'm really inclined to believe it will be good. At least for the most part. I'm not going to preach that to anyone because I just don't know. At the same time is could get worse. I'll spend my time reducing carbon and supporting the efforts to do so while people argue about what might happen. We know we can't keep burning stuff forever and that just seems seperate from the issue of what damage we've already done. Hopefully within the next decade we can begin reversing the trend.

I'll be honest, I have a hard time seeing how it can be good. I think the results could be neutral, and I don't believe the chances of that are negligible, but good seems like a stretch.

But that's still be personal opinion, we could all be very surprised.

[ScannerHead]

Is it because nobody wants to think THEIR extravagances and THEIR waste could actually be doing something bad?
No... more likely the lack of actual "science" to back up the claims.

How foolish are some people to rush to believe that THEY could somehow single-handidly alter an entire planet's climate?

[macdoc]

No... more likely the lack of actual "science" to back up the claims.

How foolish are some people to rush to believe that THEY could somehow single-handidly alter an entire planet's climate?


care to support that?? this is a science forum after all....

the climate science community thinks you are in error.

Do you really think we can drive the C02 in the atmosphere to levels not seen in 15 million years without consequences???

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years ...
8 Oct 2009 ... You must go back 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels as high as they are today, Earth scientists report. "The last time carbon
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

or that global dimming due to S02 never happened
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

or the CFC induced ozone hole is a figment of over active imaginations....?:rolleyes:

he Montreal Protocol, a treaty designed to save the Earth's ozone layer by calling on nations to reduce certain chemical emissions, was signed on this date in 1987. Twenty-five nations agreed to establish a timetable for the phasing out of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons proven to contribute to ozone depletion. Eventually, nearly 170 nations signed on to comply with the protocol, leading Kofi Annan to call it "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date."

can I point you perhaps to the CT forum instead of the science forum....:garfield:

[Furcifer]

Examples ?

If you want links you'll have to wait. I can't on this phone. I'm saying you consider the hyperbole though. Great Brittain gets thrown into an ice age and Africa becomes a barren wasteland while New York becomes New Atlantis (that was a Futurama episode with Atlanta but you get the point). That's the far end of some of the claims. What's the other end? Africa becomes a Utopia as the temperatures rise and the jet streams change to bring water to the land, New York never sees another blizzard while England sees sunny skies 300 days a year?

Is that example enough how skewed the conclusions are towards the negative extreme? Can you honestly say for every person claiming the former there's one claiming the latter?

Is it hard to believe the Earth may achieve some sort of equilibrium on its own? What if the increase in temperature causes volcanoes to erupt throwing ash into the air or phytoplankton to bloom and sequester carbon? Have all the possible processes been ruled out by experiment? Maybe they have and I just haven't seen it.

[Furcifer]

I'll be honest, I have a hard time seeing how it can be good. I think the results could be neutral, and I don't believe the chances of that are negligible, but good seems like a stretch.

But that's still be personal opinion, we could all be very surprised.

You seem skeptical, but realistic. I gotta tell you there seem to be a lot of people all over the place on this issue.

[mhaze]

You seem skeptical, but realistic. I gotta tell you there seem to be a lot of people all over the place on this issue.

Translation: The science is not settled.

[elbe]

You seem skeptical, but realistic. I gotta tell you there seem to be a lot of people all over the place on this issue.

I certainly try to be realistic, but I think research into what, if anything, we can do to mitigate possible problems. Planing for the worst may make people seem like "alarmists" but it makes good practice.

Or, I guess, I can be accused of "GROUPTHINK!!!" for actually using my own brain.

[Prometheus]

No... more likely the lack of actual "science" to back up the claims.

How foolish are some people to rush to believe that THEY could somehow single-handidly alter an entire planet's climate?

Of course, it won't be too much for you to produce a citation for someone actually making such a claim, eh?

[BenBurch]

No... more likely the lack of actual "science" to back up the claims.

How foolish are some people to rush to believe that THEY could somehow single-handidly alter an entire planet's climate?

"How foolish of that green scum to think it could single-handedly alter an entire planet's climate!" - Archean Prokaryote

[a_unique_person]

You seem skeptical, but realistic. I gotta tell you there seem to be a lot of people all over the place on this issue.

Mass extinctions have been a reality in the past.

[DogB]

"How foolish of that green scum to think it could single-handedly alter an entire planet's climate!" - Archean Prokaryote

Comparison of 40 years of AGW to the oxygen catastrophe which took about a billion years.

Worst analogy ever?

[a_unique_person]

Comparison of 40 years of AGW to the oxygen catastrophe which took about a billion years.

Worst analogy ever?

No, it's a good one. One of the concerns for AGW is that in geological terms it is a very rapid event. That means adaptation will be difficult.

[Furcifer]

Mass extinctions have been a reality in the past.

Only because I wasn't in charge!

But it was the best thing to ever happen to humans since we learned to breathe air right?

[a_unique_person]

I think we're on the same page. It could be bad but we will survive, it could be good and we will thrive.

I'm really inclined to believe it will be good. At least for the most part. I'm not going to preach that to anyone because I just don't know. At the same time is could get worse. I'll spend my time reducing carbon and supporting the efforts to do so while people argue about what might happen. We know we can't keep burning stuff forever and that just seems seperate from the issue of what damage we've already done. Hopefully within the next decade we can begin reversing the trend.

The residence time of the co2 in the atmosphere means that acting when it's beyond doubt will be too late to do anything. The CO2 already up there won't be going anywhere for a long time.

[Furcifer]

No, it's a good one. One of the concerns for AGW is that in geological terms it is a very rapid event. That means adaptation will be difficult.

For who? Me? Doubt it. It's about time we recognize we're in charge of directing evolution and adaptation on this planet. We've got some sort of Chinese carp headin for the Great Lakes. That to me is a worse disaster waiting to happen than global warming. I don't see any threads on real issues in this forum.
:p

[a_unique_person]

For who? Me? Doubt it. It's about time we recognize we're in charge of directing evolution and adaptation on this planet. We've got some sort of Chinese carp headin for the Great Lakes. That to me is a worse disaster waiting to happen than global warming. I don't see any threads on real issues in this forum.
:p

Rapid change = mass extinction. In geological terms, this is rapid change.

[Furcifer]

The residence time of the co2 in the atmosphere means that acting when it's beyond doubt will be too late to do anything. The CO2 already up there won't be going anywhere for a long time.

Hello, we are acting. What more can I do? And it might be too late already, that's what I was told 15 years ago. Is this about berating me?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
How foolish are some people to rush to believe that THEY could somehow single-handidly alter an entire planet's climate?Wow! That's right out of the Evangelical camp: God wouldn't allow measly little humans to destroy His Creation. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

"How foolish of that green scum to think it could single-handedly alter an entire planet's climate!" - Archean ProkaryoteSo few people know the true collective power of the single celled organisms. :D

[Soapy Sam]

Ignoring for the moment the argument about complexity, there is a small psychological point I wish to make.

People in general dislike being told how they must think. Well, I find I do, anyway.

When the advocates of one opinion, however good their case, open the discussion using words like "denier" and "heretic", they repel many people of reason who are as yet unconvinced, either because they have not studied the data, see other interpretations of the data, or simply do not understand the data.

The presumption by any group of zealots that there are only two possible points of view- and that anyone not with us is against us , tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, no matter what the issue involved. False dichotomies have a habit of becoming real divides.

[BenBurch]

Sometimes one point of view is simply ruled out by reality, Soapy Sam. What about Flat Earthers? Am I not allowed to treat them with mockery and derision?

[BenBurch]

So few people know the true collective power of the single celled organisms. :D

The waste gases of the life habits of 250 million tons of living cells can add up after a while...

And I'm not talking about the Archean ocean - that is about how many tons of human being are knocking about the planet... 5 billion times 100 pounds as tons...

[Slimething]

People in general dislike being told how they must think. Well, I find I do, anyway.

When the advocates of one opinion, however good their case, open the discussion using words like "denier" and "heretic", they repel many people of reason who are as yet unconvinced, either because they have not studied the data, see other interpretations of the data, or simply do not understand the data.

The presumption by any group of zealots that there are only two possible points of view- and that anyone not with us is against us , tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, no matter what the issue involved. False dichotomies have a habit of becoming real divides.

Sometimes one point of view is simply ruled out by reality, Soapy Sam. What about Flat Earthers? Am I not allowed to treat them with mockery and derision?

Well, no. When I first saw this topic under discussion, the "warmer" point of view was that we needed to cease all industrial activity. The "denier" point of vew was anything that did not fit the "wamer" point of view. I was instantly called a "denier" because I did not agree that the models then extant werw sufficiently validated for hockeystick predictions.

This issue is not a 0/1 proposition. Arrhenius' work on CO2 firmly establishes the physics that backs up hypothesis of AGW but the jury is still out on magnitude and rate. Therefore, there's still plenty of room for people who don't believe the effects will be catastrophic.

We're not faced with a round earth/oblate spheriod earth situation here. That characterization is not fair.

[a_unique_person]

Well, no. When I first saw this topic under discussion, the "warmer" point of view was that we needed to cease all industrial activity.

You are completely wrong there. The point of view was that we needed to move to a 'low carbon economy' (for want of a better term), which will be forced on us anyway when fossil fuels run out. They were merely asking us to move that date forward.

[DogB]

The waste gases of the life habits of 250 million tons of living cells can add up after a while...

And I'm not talking about the Archean ocean - that is about how many tons of human being are knocking about the planet... 5 billion times 100 pounds as tons...

Closer to 3.4x1011kg Ben*. There's about 6.8 billion of us now.

*Assuming 50kg per person

[ben m]

Well, no. When I first saw this topic under discussion, the "warmer" point of view was that we needed to cease all industrial activity.

You must have been in an unusual or ill-informed discussion group.

As long as there has been industrial activity, there has always been a fringe group in favor of ceasing it. Luddites, various utopians, the Unabomber, etc. They have always been fringe groups with no particular impact on policy.

None of this has anything to do with mainstream AGW mitigation, either on the science side or the policy side. The policy side has always been "move from high-carbon fossil energy to low-carbon renewable energy ASAP."

[Slimething]

You are completely wrong there. The point of view was that we needed to move to a 'low carbon economy' (for want of a better term), which will be forced on us anyway when fossil fuels run out. They were merely asking us to move that date forward.

AUP, I don't recall you being a part of the conversation back then. I was basically handed my ass on a platter when I questioned the science behind these grave pronouncements. I'm a phsical chemist at heart and found these pronouncements unsupported but there are poster that still persist.

I'm in agreement that, given Arrhenius' findings and if the current is trajecory unaltered, we're in a bad way. However, economics have already dictated a change away from petroleum so we may never know. Carbon-based energy is clearly too expensive. All modern economies are seeking alternatives and the third world will follow suit.

[Slimething]

You must have been in an unusual or ill-informed discussion group.

As long as there has been industrial activity, there has always been a fringe group in favor of ceasing it. Luddites, various utopians, the Unabomber, etc. They have always been fringe groups with no particular impact on policy.

None of this has anything to do with mainstream AGW mitigation, either on the science side or the policy side. The policy side has always been "move from high-carbon fossil energy to low-carbon renewable energy ASAP."

ben m, I'm in full agreement. You should have been here back then. The dire pronouncements made little sense given the evidence at hand. I even caught one proponent makng up data. (He thought he was a physicist but was anything but.) There's still one poster hanging around who informed me that "we know eveything there is to know about climate. This isn't cosmology, you know" but is strangely silent right now.

It's good so see more delibarate minds in charge of the pro side now. I'm an empricist to my bone so nothing pleases me other than corroboration but I believe we're on the same track.i

[Carefulplease]

AUP, I don't recall you being a part of the conversation back then. I was basically handed my ass on a platter when I questioned the science behind these grave pronouncements. I'm a phsical chemist at heart and found these pronouncements unsupported but there are poster that still persist.

I'm in agreement that, given Arrhenius' findings and if the current is trajecory unaltered, we're in a bad way. However, economics have already dictated a change away from petroleum so we may never know. Carbon-based energy is clearly too expensive. All modern economies are seeking alternatives and the third world will follow suit.

You may know about this already but Arrhenius's work was 'disproved' by Ångström through lab spectroscopy experiments that were reported in 1901. Then, in the 50s, it became clear that Ångström wrongly interpreted the lab experiments, neglecting the layered inhomogeneous structure of the atmosphere (that becomes thinner, cooler and dryer as you go up). It turned out Arrhenius had been correct after all.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/