Greenhouse may be worse than was first thought

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/06/1060145722497.html

And don't give me any of this "we'll all be moving to Greenland" crap.



One of Europe's leading scientists has suggested that the extreme heatwave now settled over at least 30 northern hemisphere countries could signal that man-made climate change is accelerating.

The heatwave could be consistent "with a worst-case scenario (of global warming) that nobody wants to come true", said Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief scientific adviser to the German Government and now head of Britain's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall centre.

He warned that several months' research would be needed to analyse data from around the world before scientists could say why the heatwaves were so intense this year.

"What we are seeing is absolutely unusual," Professor Schellnhuber said. "We know that global warming is proceeding apace, but most of us were thinking that in 20 to 30 years' time we would be seeing hot spells (like this).

"But it's happening now. Clearly extreme weather events will increase."

[peptoabysmal]

Could you please tell me what is this obsession you left-wing gas bags have about greenhouse gasses?

What do you intend to do about it? Create some huge money-sucking bureauocracy to regulate world climate? Create some international organization that works like the stupid homeowners associations which have taken over U.S. suburbs and transformed them into socialist cells?

[Aoidoi]

You know, this summer the midwest has been rather unseasonably cool and wet.

What does that mean for global climate change? Diddly squat.

Let me know when they get the world wide data matching their worse case predictions instead of cherry picking data and then we can start to worry about it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Could you please tell me what is this obsession you left-wing gas bags have about greenhouse gasses?

What do you intend to do about it? Create some huge money-sucking bureauocracy to regulate world climate? Create some international organization that works like the stupid homeowners associations which have taken over U.S. suburbs and transformed them into socialist cells?
Lol...... nice conspiracy theories..ever thought of writing for TV?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
You know, this summer the midwest has been rather unseasonably cool and wet.

What does that mean for global climate change? Diddly squat.

Let me know when they get the world wide data matching their worse case predictions instead of cherry picking data and then we can start to worry about it.

And Australia has been experiencing it's worst drought. What the scientists are referring to is weather events, that is, the extremes become much more extreme. Much of the time the weather will be the same, but the extremes it reaches will be worse.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And Australia has been experiencing it's worst drought. What the scientists are referring to is weather events, that is, the extremes become much more extreme. Much of the time the weather will be the same, but the extremes it reaches will be worse.

You can't be defining world wide events by showing isolated incidents in one part of the world.

[Ralph]

Bring it on.............I froze my ass off last winter...........

Now I won't have to move......................

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You can't be defining world wide events by showing isolated incidents in one part of the world.

Western Europe is a pretty big part.

[Jude]

signal that man-made climate change is accelerating.

I think this reflects a little bias. Nobody is really sure just how much man is contributing to global warming. There are just as many peer-reviewed studies showing it's a natural cycle as there are showing that man's factories are breaking the world.

[WildCat]

15,000 years ago (a blink of the eye in geologic time) Western Europe was covered in an ice sheet a mile thick, clearly the Earths climate changes from cool to warm and back again w/o any human input. What, if anything, man can do about it is open to debate. While this latest heat wave may be due to the release of greenhouse gases by man it is by no means certain.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And Australia has been experiencing it's worst drought. Er, really? Worst since when? Last I heard Australia regularly experiences droughts. Regardless, the plural of anecdote is not data. :)

What the scientists are referring to is weather events, that is, the extremes become much more extreme. Much of the time the weather will be the same, but the extremes it reaches will be worse. [/B]Others have argued this much more effectively than I shall, but I don't believe that is particularly indicated by the models (last I heard they tend to portray nights being warmer but max temps remaining the same). It is a hypothesis, and not one I've seen much good support for. Have any good data on why a global temperature increase would increase extreme weather? I'd rather like to see it, as it seems like one of those "anything that happens in the weather is due to global warming" things.

Western Europe is a pretty big part.Um, really? Look at a map lately? ;)
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/world.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Er, really? Worst since when? Last I heard Australia regularly experiences droughts. Regardless, the plural of anecdote is not data. :)

Others have argued this much more effectively than I shall, but I don't believe that is particularly indicated by the models (last I heard they tend to portray nights being warmer but max temps remaining the same). It is a hypothesis, and not one I've seen much good support for. Have any good data on why a global temperature increase would increase extreme weather? I'd rather like to see it, as it seems like one of those "anything that happens in the weather is due to global warming" things.

Um, really? Look at a map lately? ;)
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/world.htm

Australia does have regular droughts. I bought a large overcoat about 5 years ago because I was sick of freezing in the melbourne winters. I have hardly worn it after the first year, because it was never that cold. Alfresco dining was always something I thought would never work in Melbourne because the winters were too severe, it is booming.

As the temperature rises, there is more energy in the athmosphere.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Regardless, the plural of anecdote is not data. :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Greenhouse may be worse than was first thought Then again it may not.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
:)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Aoidoi
Regardless, the plural of anecdote is not data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read the story? I am not just going on my own anecdotes, the reason I am posting the topic is because the climate scientists find the weather events are fitting in with their predictions. They are going to be going over the figures, as the article says, but the initial indications are that the modelled scenarios are going to be worse case.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Australia does have regular droughts. I bought a large overcoat about 5 years ago because I was sick of freezing in the melbourne winters. I have hardly worn it after the first year, because it was never that cold. Alfresco dining was always something I thought would never work in Melbourne because the winters were too severe, it is booming.

As the temperature rises, there is more energy in the athmosphere.

I hope you are aware that some weather patterns span over decades and are not year-to-year thing. One example being El Nino.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I hope you are aware that some weather patterns span over decades and are not year-to-year thing. One example being El Nino.

El Nino is something that Australia has studied very closely, as it has been the source of the major droughts in the past. These have never gone on so long. The last El Nino came and went, but this time the drought persisted.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Did you read the story? I am not just going on my own anecdotes, the reason I am posting the topic is because the climate scientists find the weather events are fitting in with their predictions. They are going to be going over the figures, as the article says, but the initial indications are that the modelled scenarios are going to be worse case. We don't know what will happen because of or in spite of human behavior. The earth has always had tempature cycles. Is the evidence overwhelming that human behavior is behind this particular cycle?

Dr Peter Stott, who led the research team, said on Tuesday: "Once we factor in the effects of human activity, we find we can explain the warming that is observed. Translated: We were unable to model the cause and effect untill we included humans. When we did we got the results we were looking for. We stopped searching for any other explanations.

Just because it "fits" the model does not prove that humans are contributing to the rise in temperatures in any significant way. It is a posibility. Let's get it peer-reviewed and see if anyone from the opposing camp can come up with an answer. Or should we all accept the information with out a critical look?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
We don't know what will happen because of or in spite of human behavior. The earth has always had tempature cycles. Is the evidence overwhelming that human behavior is behind this particular cycle?

Translated: We were unable to model the cause and effect untill we included humans. When we did we got the results we were looking for. We stopped searching for any other explanations.

Just because it "fits" the model does not prove that humans are contributing to the rise in temperatures in any significant way. It is a posibility. Let's get it peer-reviewed and see if anyone from the opposing camp can come up with an answer. Or should we all accept the information with out a critical look?

You are basically accusing them of not following the scientific method. Of course they try to include human activity in their models. Part of global warming is not due to human activity, but part of it can only be explained by doing so. Of course their work is peer reviewed. They are professional scientists.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol...... nice conspiracy theories..ever thought of writing for TV?

Alright, let me phrase it this way:

Let me play devil's advocate and assume that there is indeed a global warming problem. What do you think the solution to the problem is?

Hallucinations of black helicopters aren't answering the question.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You are basically accusing them of not following the scientific method. No, I'm accusing them of interpreting the data without trying to find other variables that would fit the model. I reject that there conclusion is the only possible one. It's not there methodology but their premature conclusions.

Of course they try to include human activity in their models. I don't care if they use human activity in their model. I object to them coming to a conclusion that human activity is necessary to answer the questions of their model.

Part of global warming is not due to human activity, but part of it can only be explained by doing so. I don't think so. There are other models and other researchers who disagree.

Of course their work is peer reviewed. They are professional scientists. Oh please, your making a straw man. I said let's wait UNTIL it has been peer reviewed.

That it will be does not make it correct. If you are saying that it is already peer reviewed can you provide the studies or do I have to accept it as fact simply because they are scientists?

Please see Randi's commentary on the fallibility of scientists. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make one right.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I'm accusing them of interpreting the data without trying to find other variables that would fit the model. I reject that there conclusion is the only possible one. It's not there methodology but their premature conclusions.

I don't care if they use human activity in their model. I object to them coming to a conclusion that human activity is necessary to answer the questions of their model.



because they can't explain the extra warming any other way



I don't think so. There are other models and other researchers who disagree.

Oh please, your making a straw man. I said let's wait UNTIL it has been peer reviewed.

That it will be does not make it correct. If you are saying that it is already peer reviewed can you provide the studies or do I have to accept it as fact simply because they are scientists?

Please see Randi's commentary on the fallibility of scientists. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make one right.

Yes, the guy himself said they needed to perform further checks on the figures, so he was certainly not committing himself to anything prematurely, as you would expect. He was also pointing out that what was happening was in accordance with their models on the most pessimistic assumptions. England is predicted to hit 100 degrees F for the first time ever.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
because they can't explain the extra warming any other way Wow, so if my only explanation of an event is metaphysical I must accept it?

I'm sorry AUP but this isn't going to wash. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

By your logic, had Edison quit his experiments before success he would have proven that the light bulb was not possible.

I'll say it again, just because they have so far only found one way of explaining the extra warming is not proof that there is NO other way.

Yes, the guy himself said they needed to perform further checks on the figures, so he was certainly not committing himself to anything prematurely, as you would expect. Good, then my proposal stands. I will wait for peer review and a chance for those in the opposing camp (a rather significant one at that) to look at the data and try and come up with an alternative explanation. Ok?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You are basically accusing them of not following the scientific method.

Oh yes. I suppose making dramatic doom-predicting press releases of unreviewed data is a valuable part of the scientific method?

:rolleyes:

Putzai was also a proffesional scientist.

So am I.

Will you belive everything I say?

[Jon_in_london]

Oh by the way, the European heat-wave hasnt even come up to 1976 standards yet and isnt likely too.

[Skeptical Greg]

They said the heatwave must be partly due to man-made pollution.

That sounds pretty darn scientific to me..

And of course these whiners have all stopped using the products of 21st century technology, like electricity, that cause pollution.


It's called ' Weather '.

It changes..

So what?

[Diamond]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And Australia has been experiencing it's worst drought. What the scientists are referring to is weather events, that is, the extremes become much more extreme. Much of the time the weather will be the same, but the extremes it reaches will be worse.

Its been experiencing drought because in the past year the Pacific has seen a long lasting (although lower level than 1998) El Nino event. El Ninos cause lots of wetness in South America and corresponding drought in Australia.

This process has been going on for millions of years. Now its all the fault of the Americans (apparently)

Edit: And I'll throw this in for good measure: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html

[The Don]

I just don't think people understand the true nature of global warming....

If it's hot today, it's due to global warming (aren't you aware of the fact that the level of Carbon Dioxide is almost exactly fifty-three bazillion times higher than it was)

If it's cold today it's due to global warming disrupting weather patterns

If it's dry today in the UK it's because of the incipient desertification due to global warming

If it's wet today it's due to global warming increasing maritime evaporation rates

The issue is now so polarised that there are no independent observers (merely putting forward evidence puts you in one camp or another).


A few things I believe to be true:

- Media pundits don't know their @rs£ from their elbow when it comes to any kind of science or statistical analysis. They are exactly the last people to be putting forward ideas and frightening people
- The weather is never average it will always be hotter/colder/wetter/drier/sunnier/cloudier than long term averages suggest it ought
- Somehow (hah!) the evidence needs to be presented in as objective a fashion as possible to enable people (but clearly not those I deem too stupid) to see whether there is an issue here and if so what to do about it

[Quasi]

Here in New England we just had the worst, coldest winter in my life. This summer has been unseasonably cool and wet. Further, we do not know much about "global warming" yet, so stopping the world economies on a guess is complete stupidity. Even most countries in Europe, especially the UK who signed the silly Kyoto Protocol are having a real hard time convincing their citizens they have to fork over enormous amounts of money for this issue. The
IEC proposal is equally stupid- you can come over here to the USA and take our homes over our cold dead bodies. Environmentalism is the new radical world cult.

[Skeptical Greg]

I hate to tell you this.. But the Earth, is like, really huge and complicated.. and the pathetic little bugs called ' humans ', cannot save it...

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Quasi
Environmentalism is the new radical world cult.
What about anti-Environmentalism?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/06/1060145722497.html

And don't give me any of this "we'll all be moving to Greenland" crap.



I don't know what you mean. Who claims we are all going to move to Greenland?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

What about anti-Environmentalism?

What about it ?

Is it similar to ' anti - life ' ?

[Supercharts]

Anyone remember the Club of Rome’s prediction years ago that said the population would explode by now and we would all be starving to death? Then Carl Sagan predicted that we'd be in an icehouse?
Clearly if any prediction is made I think we are better off tallying up the BVM "sightings", weeping statues etc. Or the hairy caterpillars. Or The Old Farmer's Almanac. The reasons are the same as the greenhouse predictions, namely, the use of the words may, could, possible.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

What about anti-Environmentalism?

that would be called skepticism...:D

[Diamond]

I think it speaks volumes about the debate on Global Warming that this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Science forum.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Anyone remember the Club of Rome’s prediction years ago that said the population would explode by now and we would all be starving to death?

What people sometime fail to recognize, is that ' starving to death ' is a logical outcome of irresponsible breeding habits.

Trying to insure the food supply will accomodate such activity is not a logical alternative.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Diamond
I think it speaks volumes about the debate on Global Warming that this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Science forum.

Whatever happened to ' David Wilson ' ?

[patnray]

The earth's climate is enormously complex. Clearly the human population and scale of human activities are significant and capable of environmental impact. But we are still many years away form an accurate model of climate and human impact on it.

No single season or short term trend can be taken as confirmation of any model just because it is consistent with the predictions of the model. If I say I invented a color that looks green but will become blue on Jan 1, 3000, and I observe that it still looks green tomorrow, that observation does not confirm my theory because it does not rule out other explanations.

My personal indicator of significant long term climate change is tropical diseases. If malaria becomes common in London, then we'll know warming really is happening (though we may still not know why)...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by patnray

My personal indicator of significant long term climate change is tropical diseases. If malaria becomes common in London, then we'll know warming really is happening (though we may still not know why)...

I'm reminded of the story of the ill-prepared TV Weather person who supposedly pointed to the weather map and said:


" There it is. And there's not a damn thing we can do about it.. "

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of Europe's leading scientists has suggested...


Well! That's more then enough to convince me!! :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


El Nino is something that Australia has studied very closely, as it has been the source of the major droughts in the past. These have never gone on so long. The last El Nino came and went, but this time the drought persisted.

And your basing your conclusions on that!! :eek:

Two El Nino's is all you need to make conclusions about one of the earth's most chaotic systems?

Did you remember to include that butterfly flapping its wings in New Guinea to your data? :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Diamond
I think it speaks volumes about the debate on Global Warming that this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Science forum.

Well, modern environmentalism is one of the last bastions of socialism...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Diamond
I think it speaks volumes about the debate on Global Warming that this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Science forum.

Bingo! Exactly. Most people are trying to debate whether or not global warming exists and if it is a threat. Posting here is assuming that there must be a political, rather than scientific solution to the problem.

What I want to know is what is the proposed political solution to global warming?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

What I want to know is what is the proposed political solution to global warming?

Find out here (http://www.earthfirst.org/) or here (http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/) .

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Find out here (http://www.earthfirst.org/) or here (http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/) .

Oh, the stupid Kyoto Protocol. I was right, it is like a giant homeowner's association, but on a global scale. Look what it's done for Canada (http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/editorials/LTE/robinson_CTF/robinsonlist/robinson034/kyotougly.html) so far.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Quasi
Here in New England we just had the worst, coldest winter in my life. This summer has been unseasonably cool and wet. Further, we do not know much about "global warming" yet, so stopping the world economies on a guess is complete stupidity. Even most countries in Europe, especially the UK who signed the silly Kyoto Protocol are having a real hard time convincing their citizens they have to fork over enormous amounts of money for this issue. The
IEC proposal is equally stupid- you can come over here to the USA and take our homes over our cold dead bodies. Environmentalism is the new radical world cult.

Global Warming does not mean that extreme weather events such as bad winters will not get worse.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


And your basing your conclusions on that!! :eek:

Two El Nino's is all you need to make conclusions about one of the earth's most chaotic systems?

Did you remember to include that butterfly flapping its wings in New Guinea to your data? :rolleyes:

The drought cycle in Australia had been linked closely to El Nino. In fact, they could predict when the next drought was coming based on this cycle. Only this time, when the drought was meant to end, it didn't. El Nino went and the drought was as relentless as ever.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diamond
I think it speaks volumes about the debate on Global Warming that this thread is in the Politics forum and not the Science forum.

It is an issue dominated by politics, not science. People are very quick to vilify scientists investigating GW for some reason, but seem very happy to accept their investigations into quantum theory or evolution.

Why? Because the proposed remedy is politically unacceptable.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Whatever happened to ' David Wilson ' ?He imploded under the immense pressure of his own ego.

[a_unique_person]

I have a friend who has been working as a scientist on GW for years now. Everytime I raise the points raised on this board as rebuttals to GW, he tells me that these are already well known by the GW scientists, and have been taken into account.

I have asked if he would like to log on here and answer a few questions, but he is not interested in debating a few cranks on the internet who have such a shallow appreciation of the issue, as shown by their belief, for example, that the scientists involved in this research do not already know about all these points already.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have a friend who has been working as a scientist on GW for years now. Everytime I raise the points raised on this board as rebuttals to GW, he tells me that these are already well known by the GW scientists, and have been taken into account.

I have asked if he would like to log on here and answer a few questions, but he is not interested in debating a few cranks on the internet who have such a shallow appreciation of the issue, as shown by their belief, for example, that the scientists involved in this research do not already know about all these points already.
First of all, I don't doubt that human activity can affect the global climate. However, I don't see how the scientists quoted in the article can be so certain that this years warm weather in Europe can only be explained by said human activity. In fact, there have been warm periods in the past that were undoubtedly not the result of human activity. When the Vikings first colonized Iceland the weather was much warmer than it is now, they grew crops there that could not be grown there today. Until the scientists can explain why this was so, they can't possibly be certain about events today. Yet all the scientists quoted in the article take it as a given that humans are affecting the earth's climate, and they only need to find out by how much. Frankly, this looks like junk science to me - they've already determined the cause of the problem, now they can mine the data to fit their pre-ordained conclusion.
Climate records for much of the world don't go back very far, 150 years or so even in the best recorded areas. There simply cannot be enough data yet to draw definite conclusions.
The one thing that is certain, however, is that there will be funding for scientists who are quick to jump on the global warming bandwagon. And where there is gobs of money, junk science is sure to follow. Just look at the tobacco company funded studies that "proved" smoking was good for your health.
Until scientists can come up with an accepted explanation for the dramatic climate swings in the past (warm spell > ice age > warm spell many times over, and in relatively short periods of time) I'll remain suspicious of their explanations for the ones in the present.
And I speak as a man who lives at the southern edge of a lake 300 miles long and 90 miles wide formed a mere 12,000 years ago, during the most recent glacial retreat. ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
.........................

In fact, they could predict when the next drought was coming based on this cycle. Only this time, when the drought was meant to end, it didn't. El Nino went and the drought was as relentless as ever.

Meant to end?

Hello!!!


Was your GW scientist, who does not wish to engage these forums, one of these experts, telling us when El Nino was meant to end?

Is your friend published? I would be interestend in his suggestions for ending GW?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is an issue dominated by politics, not science. People are very quick to vilify scientists investigating GW for some reason, but seem very happy to accept their investigations into quantum theory or evolution.

Why? Because the proposed remedy is politically unacceptable.

Exactly what is the proposed remedy?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Meant to end?

Hello!!!


Was your GW scientist, who does not wish to engage these forums, one of these experts, telling us when El Nino was meant to end?

Is your friend published? I would be interestend in his suggestions for ending GW?

El Nino ended, as expected, but this time, the drought didn't. It stayed. Now they are saying the next El Nino is due. If that means the drought gets worse, then we are in for a disaster.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


El Nino ended, as expected, but this time, the drought didn't. It stayed. Now they are saying the next El Nino is due. If that means the drought gets worse, then we are in for a disaster.

Looking at the patterns at a 100+ year scale it might make sense, otherwise it's just guessing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Meant to end?

Hello!!!


Was your GW scientist, who does not wish to engage these forums, one of these experts, telling us when El Nino was meant to end?

Is your friend published? I would be interestend in his suggestions for ending GW?

http://www.dar.csiro.au/profile/hirst.html

publications.




Braganza, K., Karoly, D. J., Hirst, A. C., Mann, M. E., Stott, P., Stouffer, R. J., and Tett, S. F. B. (2003). Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - variability and correlation structure. Climate Dynamics, 20 (5): 491-502.

Abstract Available
Bi, D., Budd, W. F., Hirst, A. C., and Wu, X. (2002). Transient and long-term response of the Southern Ocean to global warming in the CSIRO Climate Model. In: Abstract volume 9th National AMOS Conference, University of Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 18) . [Melbourne?]: AMOS. p. 17.

Abstract Available
Bi, D., Budd, W. F., Hirst, A. C., and Wu, X. (2002). Response of the antarctic circumpolar current transport to global warming in a coupled model. Geophysical Research Letters, 29 (24): 10.1029/2002GL015919.

Abstract Available
Gordon, H. B., Rotstayn, L. D., McGregor, J. L., Dix, M. R., Kowalczyk, E. A., O'Farrell, S. P., Waterman, L. J., Hirst, A. C., Wilson, S. G., Collier, M. A., Watterson, I. G., and Elliott, T. I. (2002). The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model [Electronic publication]. Aspendale: CSIRO Atmospheric Research. (CSIRO Atmospheric Research technical paper; no. 60). 130 p.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., and Gordon, H. B. (2002). The CSIRO Mk 3 Climate Model: control integrations and outlook. In: Abstract volume 9th National AMOS Conference, University of Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 18) . [Melbourne?]: AMOS. p. 40.

Abstract Available
Vimont, D. J., Battisti, D. S., and Hirst, A. C. (2002). Pacific interannual and interdecadal equatorial variability in a 1000-yr simulation of the CSIRO coupled general circulation model. Journal of Climate, 15 (2): 160-178.

Abstract Available
Bi, D. H., Budd, W. F., Hirst, A. C., and Wu, X. R. (2001). Collapse and reorganisation of the Southern Ocean overturning under global warming in a coupled model. Geophysical Research Letters, 28 (20): 3927-3930.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C. (2001). Effect of oceanic eddy physics on patterns of climate change over the Southern Hemisphere in the CSIRO coupled climate model. In: AMOS 2001: 8th National AMOS Conference incorporating the 6th Australasian Conference on the Physics of Remote Sensing of Atmosphere and Ocean [abstracts], University of Tasmania (AMOS Publication, 17) . [Hobart?]: AMOS Conference Committee. p. 35.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., Wilson, S. G., Smith, I. N., and Schiller, A. (2001). Dynamical ENSO models: simple to GCM. In: Understanding the climate of Australia and the Indo-Pacific Region: extended abstracts of presentations at the thirteenth annual BMRC Modelling Workshop, BMRC, Melbourne, D. J. Jasper, and P. J. Meighen (editors) (BMRC Research Report, 84) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre. p. 41-48.

Abstract Available
Vimont, D. J., Battisti, D. S., and Hirst, A. C. (2001). Footprinting: a seasonal connection between the tropics and mid-latitudes. Geophysical Research Letters, 28 (20): 3923-3926.

Abstract Available
Wu, X., Budd, W. F., Hirst, A. C., and Bi, D. (2001). The long term approach to a new equilibrium in a coupled global climate model with increased greenhouse gases . In: AMOS 2001: 8th National AMOS Conference incorporating the 6th Australasian Conference on the Physics of Remote Sensing of Atmosphere and Ocean [abstracts], University of Tasmania (AMOS Publication, 17) . [Hobart?]: AMOS Conference Committee. p. 92.

Abstract Available
Griffies, S. M., Böning, C., Bryan, F. O., Chassignet, E. P., Gerdes, R., Hasumi, H., Hirst, A. C., Treguier, A.-M., and Webb, D. (2000). Developments in ocean climate modelling. Ocean Modelling, 2 (3-4): 123-192.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., O'Farrell, S. P., and Gordon, H. B. (2000). Comparison of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model with and without oceanic eddy-induced advection. Part I: Ocean spinup and control integrations. Journal of Climate, 13 (1): 139-163.

Abstract Available
Hunt, B. G., and Hirst, A. C. (2000). Global climatic models and their potential for seasonal climatic forecasting. In: Applications of seasonal climate forecasting in agricultural and natural ecosystems: the Australian experience. G. L. Hammer, N. Nicholls, and C. D. Mitchell (editors). (Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences Library; 21) Dordrecht: Kluwer. p. 89-107.

Abstract Available
Jackett, D. R., McDougall, T. J., England, M. H., and Hirst, A. C. (2000). Thermal expansion in ocean and coupled general circulation models. Journal of Climate, 13 (8): 1384-1405.

Abstract Available
Matear, R. J., Hirst, A. C., and McNeil, B. I. (2000). Changes in dissolved oxygen in the Southern Ocean with climate change. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 1: Paper number 2000GC000086.

Abstract Available
Walland, D. J., Power, S. B., and Hirst, A. C. (2000). Decadal climate variability simulated in a coupled general circulation model. Climate Dynamics, 16 (2-3): 201-211.

Abstract Available
Wu, X., Budd, W. F., and Hirst, A. C. (2000). Climate change in a coupled global climate model. In: AMOS 2000: the use and application of meteorological and oceanographic information: seventh National Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Conference: abstracts, Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 16) . [Melbourne]: AMOS Conference Committee. p. 130.


Battisti, D. S., Sarachik, E. S., and Hirst, A. C. (1999). A consistent model for the large-scale steady surface atmospheric circulation in the tropics. Journal of Climate, 12 (10): 2956-2964.

Abstract Available
Delhez, E. J. M., Campin, J. M., Hirst, A. C., and Deleersnijder, E. (1999). Toward a general theory of the age in ocean modelling. Ocean Modelling, 1 (1): 17-27.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C. (1999). The Southern Ocean response to global warming in the CSIRO coupled ocean-atmosphere model. Environmental Modelling and Software, 14 (4): 227-241.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C. (1999). Determination of water component age in ocean models: application to the fate of North Atlantic Deep Water. Ocean Modelling, 1 (2-4): 81-94.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., Budd, W. F., Bi, D., and Wu, X. (1999). On rapid and protracted change in the Southern ocean circulation under moderate global warming. In: IUGG 99: abstracts , Birmingham. [England]: International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. p. 254-255, abstract MC03/W/04-B4.


Hirst, A. C., and Matear, R. J. (1999). Simulation of oceanic chemical change under protracted global warming. In: Parallel computing in meteorology and oceanography: abstracts of presentations at the eleventh annual BMRC Modelling Workshop, BMRC, Melbourne, D. J. Jasper, and P. J. Meighen (editors) (BMRC Research Report, 75) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre. p. 51-52.


Hirst, A. C., Power, S. B., and Walland, D. (1999). On Pacific decadal variability in the CSIRO coupled ocean-atmosphere model. In: IUGG 99: abstracts , Birmingham. [England]: International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. p. 46, abstract JSP25/W/46-B5.


Hirst, A. C., Waterman, L. J., and McDougall, T. J. (1999). In the parametrization of residual mean effects in a global ocean model. In: Meteorology and oceanography at the millennium: AMOS '99: sixth National Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Conference: abstracts, Canberra (AMOS Publication, 14) . [Canberra]: AMOS Conference Committee. p. 26.


Karoly, D. J., Braganza, K., Hirst, A. C., and Power, S. (1999). Climate change detection and attribution using simple global indices. In: 10th Symposium on Global Change Studies: preprints, Dallas, Texas. Boston, Mass.: American Meteorological Society. p. 240-241.


Karoly, D. J., Braganza, K., Hirst, A. C., and Power, S. B. (1999). Climate change detection and attribution using simple global indicies. In: IUGG 99: abstracts , Birmingham. [England]: International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. p. 252, abstract MC02/W/02-B2.


Matear, R. J., and Hirst, A. C. (1999). Climate change feedback on the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Tellus, 51B (3): 722-733.

Abstract Available
Matear, R. J., and Hirst, A. C. (1999). Future oceanic CO2 uptake predicted using CSIRO climate model. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium CO2 in the Oceans, Tsukuba, Japan, Y. Nojiri (editor) (CGER, I037-'99) . Tsukuba: Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies. p. 91-94.


Smith, N., Hirst, A. C., and Cai, W. J. (1999). Decadal predictability and variability. In: Annual BMRC-DAR Research Discussion Meeting: meeting report, Melbourne, Vic. Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology. p. 5-6.


Hirst, A. C. (1998). Long-term oceanic response to moderate global warming. In: Coupled climate modelling: abstracts of presentations at the tenth annual BMRC Modelling Workshop, BMRC, Melbourne, P. J. Meighen (editors) (BMRC Research Report, 69) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre. p. 63-65.


Hirst, A. C., and McDougall, T. J. (1998). The meridional overturning and dianeutral transport in a z-coordinate ocean model including eddy-induced advection. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 28 (6): 1205-1223.

Abstract Available
Neelin, J. D., Battisti, D. S., Hirst, A. C., Jin, F. F., Wakata, Y., Yamagata, T., and Zebiak, S. E. (1998). ENSO theory. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103 (C7): 14261-14290.

Abstract Available
Power, S., Coleman, R., Fraser, J., Wang, G., Walland, D., and Hirst, A. C. (1998). Coupled modelling in BMRC's climate change modelling group. In: Coupled climate modelling: abstracts of presentations at the tenth annual BMRC Modelling Workshop, BMRC, Melbourne, P. J. Meighen (editors) (BMRC Research Report, 69) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre. p. 31-36.


Suppiah, R., Hennessy, K. J., Hirst, A. C., Jones, R. N., Katzfey, J. J., Pittock, A. B., Walsh, K. J. E., Whetton, P. H., and Wilson, S. G. (1998). Climate change under enhanced greenhouse conditions in northern Australia: final report 1994-1997. Aspendale, Vic.: CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. iv, 50 p.

Abstract Available
Suppiah, R., Hennessy, K. J., Hirst, A. C., Jones, R. N., Katzfey, J. J., Pittock, A. B., Walsh, K. J. E., Whetton, P. H., and Wilson, S. G. (1998). Climate change under enhanced greenhouse conditions in northern Australia: third annual report 1996-1997. Aspendale, Vic.: CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. vi, 95 p.


England, M. H., and Hirst, A. C. (1997). Chlorofluorocarbon uptake in a world ocean model. 2. Sensitivity to surface thermohaline forcing and subsurface mixing parameterizations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (C7): 15709-15731.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C. (1997). Sensitivity of global warming patterns to oceanic eddy physics. In: IAMAP/IAPSO Joint Assemblies. Abstracts, Melbourne, D. Jasper, and T. Beer (editors). [Melbourne]: Local Organising Committee, 1997 Joint Assemblies of IAMAS & IAPSO. p. abstract JPM9m.


Karoly, D. J., McIntosh, P. C., Berrisford, P., McDougall, T. J., and Hirst, A. C. (1997). Similarities of the Deacon cell in the Southern Ocean and the Ferrel cells in the atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 123 (538B): 519-526.

Abstract Available
Karoly, D. J., McIntosh, P. C., Berrisford, P., McDougall, T. J., and Hirst, A. C. (1997). Similarities of the Deacon cell in the Southern Ocean and the Ferrel cells in the atmosphere. In: Fifth International Conference on Southern Hemisphere Meteorology and Oceanography: preprints, Pretoria, South Africa. Boston, Mass.: American Meteorological Society. p. 208-209.


McGregor, J. L., Hirst, A. C., Hunt, B. G., Katzfey, J. J., and Nguyen, K. C. (1997). Progress report for the SARCS modelling project using CSIRO models [restricted access]. Melbourne: CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. 9 p.


Power, S. B., and Hirst, A. C. (1997). Eddy parameterization and the oceanic response to idealized global warming. Climate Dynamics, 13 (6): 417-428.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C. (1996). Parameterization of eddies in ocean GCMs: consequences for climate modelling climate change. In: 3rd National AMOS Conference ... [Abstracts], University of Tasmania (AMOS Publication, 11) . Hobart: AMOS. p. 46.


Hirst, A. C. (1996). Effects of oceanic eddy physics on simulation of global warming. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Climate Prediction and Predictability , Melbourne. Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology . p. 89-92.


Hirst, A. C., and Baines, P. G. (1996). Ocean modelling . (Division of Atmospheric Research Information Sheet; 96/4) Aspendale: CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. 2 p.


Hirst, A. C., Gordon, H. B., and O'Farrell, S. P. (1996). Climate change in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model including eddy-induced advection. In: 1996 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting [abstracts], Brisbane (Supplement to EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union , 77 (22)) . Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. p. W51.


Hirst, A. C., Gordon, H. B., and O'Farrell, S. P. (1996). Global warming in a coupled climate model including oceanic eddy-induced advection. Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (23): 3361-3364.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., Jackett, D. R., and McDougall, T. J. (1996). The meridional overturning cells of a world ocean model in neutral density coordinates. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26 (5): 775-791.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., and McDougall, T. J. (1996). Deep-water properties and surface buoyancy flux as simulated by a z-coordinate model including eddy-induced advection. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 26 (7): 1320-1343.

Abstract Available
Karoly, D. J., McIntosh, P. C., McDougall, T. J., Hirst, A. C., and Berrisford, P. (1996). Similarities of the Deacon cell in the Southern Ocean and the Ferrel cells in the atmosphere. In: 3rd National AMOS Conference ... [Abstracts], University of Tasmania (AMOS Publication, 11) . Hobart: AMOS. p. 48.


McDougall, T. J., Hirst, A. C., England, M. H., and McIntosh, P. C. (1996). Implications of a new eddy parameterization for ocean models. Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (16): 2085-2088.

Abstract Available
Power, S. B., and Hirst, A. C. (1996). Do transient eddies help stabilize thermohaline circulation? In: 1996 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting [abstracts], Brisbane (Supplement to EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union , 77 (22)) . Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. p. W57.


Power, S. B., and Hirst, A. C. (1996). Ocean modelling. In: Annual BMRC-DAR Research Discussion Meeting ... :compilation of presentation summaries and discussion outcomes, [Aspendale], W. J. Bouma (editor). Aspendale: CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. p. 10-13.


Waterman, L. J., Hirst, A. C., and Godfrey, J. S. (1996). Seasonal variability and near-surface mixing in a numerical simulation of the Indian Ocean. In: 1996 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting [abstracts], Brisbane (Supplement to EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union , 77 (22)) . Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. p. W58.


Hirst, A. C. (1995). Application of an eddy transport parameterisation to a global ocean GCM. In: Abstracts APOC/AMOS Joint Conference, Lorne (AMOS Publication, 10) . Melbourne: Joint Conference. p. 56.


Hirst, A. C. (1994). On the fate of North Atlantic Deep Water as simulated by global ocean GCM. In: 1st National AMOS Conference: incorporating 5th Air-Sea Interaction Conference: abstracts, University of Adelaide (AMOS Publication, 9) . Melbourne: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. p. 36.


Hirst, A. C., and Cai, W. J. (1994). Sensitivity of a world ocean GCM to changes in subsurface mixing parameterization. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 24 (6): 1256-1279.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., and Godfrey, J. S. (1994). The response to a sudden change in Indonesian throughflow in a global ocean GCM. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 24 (9): 1895-1910.

Abstract Available
England, M. H., Godfrey, J. S., Hirst, A. C., and Tomczak, M. (1993). The mechanism for Antarctic Intermediate Water renewal in a world ocean model. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 23 (7): 1553-1560.

Abstract Available
England, M. H., Godfrey, J. S., Tomczak, M., and Hirst, A. C. (1993). The mechanism for Antarctic intermediate water renewal in a world ocean model. In: Fourth International Conference on Southern Hemisphere Meteorology and Oceanography: preprints, Hobart. Boston, Mass.: American Meteorological Society. p. 324-325.


Godfrey, J. S., Hirst, A. C., and Wilkin, J. (1993). Why does Indonesian throughflow appear to originate from the north Pacific. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 23 (6): 1087-1098.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C. (1993). Experiments with subsurface mixing schemes in a global ocean GCM. In: Fourth International Conference on Southern Hemisphere Meteorology and Oceanography: preprints, Hobart. Boston, Mass.: American Meteorological Society. p. 183-184.


Hirst, A. C., and Godfrey, J. S. (1993). The role of Indonesian throughflow in a global ocean GCM. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 23 (6): 1057-1086.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., and O'Farrell, S. P. (1993). [Letter regarding ... proposed National Marine Institute ...]. Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Supplement, 6 (4): [2].


Hirst, A. C. (1992). The prediction of ENSO changes resulting from anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. In: One-day ENSO Meeting [Abstracts], Melbourne, B. G. Hunt (organiser). Aspendale: CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. 2 p.


Hirst, A. C., and Godfrey, J. S. (1992). Mechanisms of remote response in a global ocean GCM: the effect of a change in Indonesian throughflow. In: 4th Air-Sea Interaction Conference: abstracts, University of Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 8) . Melbourne: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. p. Abstract no. 22.


Hirst, A. C., and Godfrey, J. S. (1992). Sensitivity of an ocean GCM to Indian-Pacific water mass exchange. In: Modelling weather and climate: papers presented at the third BMRC modelling workshop, Melbourne (BMRC Research Report, 33) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre. p. 335-363.


Power, S. B., Smith, N. R., Hirst, A. C., Moore, A. M., and Post, D. A. (1992). The sensitivity of OGCM heat and salt fluxes to surface salinity and temperature anomalies. In: 4th Air-Sea Interaction Conference: abstracts, University of Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 8) . Melbourne: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. p. Abstract no. 47.


Godfrey, J. S., Hirst, A. C., and Wilkin, J. (1991). The physics of the heat flux distribution in the southern hemisphere of a global ocean model. In: International Conference on the Physical Causes of Drought and Desertification [Abstracts], Melbourne University, B. G. Hunt (editor) (AMOS Publication, 7) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology. 1 p.


Hirst, A. C. (1991). Behaviour and stability of a glacial ocean GCM. In: Australian Physical Oceanography Conference: conference handbook [abstracts], Canberra. Canberra: Australian Defence Force Academy. p. 68.


Hirst, A. C., and Godfrey, J. S. (1991). The effect of Indonesian throughflow on surface heat flux and SST in a global ocean GCM. In: International Conference on the Physical Causes of Drought and Desertification [Abstracts], Melbourne University, B. G. Hunt (editor) (AMOS Publication, 7) . Melbourne: Bureau of Meteorology. 1 p.


Hirst, A. C. (1990). On simple coupled ocean-atmosphere models, equatorial instabilities and ENSO. In: International TOGA Scientific Conference Proceedings (Invited papers), Honolulu, Hawaii (WCRP, 43; WMO/TD - no. 379) . [Geneva]: World Climate Research Programme. p. 103-110.


Hirst, A. C., and Lau, K. M. (1990). Intraseasonal and interannual oscillations in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. Journal of Climate, 3 (7): 713-725.

Abstract Available
Battisti, D. S., and Hirst, A. C. (1989). Interannual variability in a tropical atmosphere-ocean model: influence of the basic state, ocean geometry. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 46 (12): 1687-1712.

Abstract Available
Battisti, D. S., Hirst, A. C., and Sarachik, E. S. (1989). Instability and predictability in coupled atmosphere-ocean models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 329: 237-247.


Hirst, A. C. (1989). Recent advances in the theory of ENSO. Newsletter of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, 2 (6): 101-103.

[Cain]

I love when blowhards like Peptoabysmal and other fanatic American ideologues imply -- or openly claim! -- global warming is a myth. *insert insidious images of evil government burearucracy over-regulating the cherished business class here*

Not coincidentially, the fiercest opposition to evolution also comes from the United States. (The fundamentalisms involved are not far removed; indeed, there's quite a bit of overlap.)

Oh, and the IPCC is a tool of the dominant communist influences inside the UN. :rolleyes:

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Cain
I love when blowhards like Peptoabysmal and other fanatic American ideologues imply -- or openly claim! -- global warming is a myth. *insert insidious images of evil government burearucracy over-regulating the cherished business class here*

Not coincidentially, the fiercest opposition to evolution also comes from the United States. (The fundamentalisms involved are not far removed; indeed, there's quite a bit of overlap.)

Oh, and the IPCC is a tool of the dominant communist influences inside the UN. :rolleyes:

A classic straw man argument.

#124323 in a series of many.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Diamond


A classic straw man argument.

#124323 in a series of many.

If Cain has chimed in, heath cannot be far behind... :(

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cain
Oh, and the IPCC is a tool of the dominant communist influences inside the UN. :rolleyes:


"…I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." -- Judi Barri of EarthFirst! quoted by Walter Williams, columnists with Heritage Features, Syndicate, State Journal Register, June 25, 1992.


I have hundreds more...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I have hundreds more...

Please share. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Sorry I asked...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak



"…I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." -- Judi Barri of EarthFirst! quoted by Walter Williams, columnists with Heritage Features, Syndicate, State Journal Register, June 25, 1992.


I have hundreds more...

I cannot say if what she believes is true or false, but the basic thinking behind it, as far as I can tell, is that under capitalism, there is no incentive to work towards a common goal, it all assumes that each entity works towards only what is best for it individually.

To achieve a global goal like a huge reduction in greenhouse emissions needs a goal that is pursued at a higher level. In this case, Judi believes it is Socialism that can achieve this goal.

If she is right or wrong, I cannot say, but she is not a moronic cretin as you are portraying her.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sorry I asked...

Well, get to work, there are plenty of his published papers online. Should keep you busy for a couple of years.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
...but she is not a moronic cretin as you are portraying her.


Evidence of my portrayal, please?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony


Please share. :)

OK...

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." -- Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!" -- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

"Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth." -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. -- Pentti Linkola

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world -- John Shuttleworth

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. -- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight. -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS -- Earth First! Newsletter

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels. -- Carl Amery

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby. -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I cannot say if what she believes is true or false, but the basic thinking behind it, as far as I can tell, is that under capitalism, there is no incentive to work towards a common goal, it all assumes that each entity works towards only what is best for it individually.

To achieve a global goal like a huge reduction in greenhouse emissions needs a goal that is pursued at a higher level. In this case, Judi believes it is Socialism that can achieve this goal. Under a capitalist democracy we (America) have enacted stringernt environmental regulation. Perhaps not stringent enough for some but far stringent than any enacted in the former Soviet Union or Peoples Republic of China.

The problem with "the common goal" is that it is often used for purposes other than evnironmentalism. They Kyoto treaty was punative towards America while it let developing countries off the hook.

Capitalism and the Environment (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/environment.htm)

Doesn't capitalism destroy the environment?
No. Capitalism is the system of individual rights. It is the greatest protector of man's environment' (as opposed to the protection of the environment at the expense of man's well-being).

How is this possible?
Under capitalism all property is privately owned. If you pollute your own property that is your business (but in doing so you reduce the property value which would not be in your self-interest). However, the minute your pollution spreads to another person's property, and causes objectively provable damage, the owners of that property can sue you as a matter of right.

The right to property is not the privilege to damage or pollute the property of others. Witness that the privately owned locks and streams of Scotland are far cleaner than the government owned cesspools of socialist India.

What is the solution to pollution?
As for the disposing of the pollution of factories, this is a technological solution -- and capitalism, as the system of technological progress, is the only system that can provide such a solution.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak


OK...

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." -- Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!" -- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

"Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth." -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. -- Pentti Linkola

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world -- John Shuttleworth

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. -- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight. -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS -- Earth First! Newsletter

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels. -- Carl Amery

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby. -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Thank you Kodiak, very revealing. This particular aspect of the "progressive" movement is clearly backwards and barbaric and these "people" are shining examples of that.

The true progressive movement is libertarianism.

I especially liked this one:


"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world -- John Shuttleworth

:roll:

[Tmy]

What is normal weather anyway?? If you look at the daily weather records they are at extremes.

If there was so much global warming wouldnt all the record hot and cold temps, rain, ect...be from the last 10 yrs. Youll wath the news and theyll say the record high for this day was in 1938. How can this be if global warming hadnt hit yet?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!" -- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. -- Pentti Linkola

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight. -- David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS -- Earth First! Newsletter

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995 [/B]Thanks Kodiak,

AUP, in reference to the above, could you expand further on this "common" goal? Does the "goal" include the culling of humans?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife FundIn his case, that would probably be an improvement. If, in fact, anyone noticed the difference.

[shanek]

"I think the Global Warming people are the intellectual descendants of those people way back when who told us that unless we threw virgins into the volcano a giant sea monster would come and eat us. And then, sooner or later there'd be an eclipse, and they'd be like, 'See? We told you this would happen!' 'Well, no, you said that we'd be eaten by a giant sea monster.' 'Well, whaddya think's blocking out the sun?' 'Oh! Well, then we'd better throw some virgins in there! I just hope we can find a couple...'" —Tim Slagle

[pollywog]

As many have already written, it is complicated.
The majority of scientists think to various degrees that humans are the instigators or (large) contributors to the current changes in climate. What those climate changes precisely are hasn’t been exactly established yet. However scientists have also found out that climatological changes have sometimes happened rather fast in the past. A past before any human activity or activities on the current scale.

As the implications are enormous if the doom thinkers are mostly correct it is wise to take measures in control of greenhouse gasses and general pollution. These measures are beneficial anyway. Stopping deforestation, cleaning up the many sources of pollution all serve more than one purpose. Becoming more efficient with traditional energy sources and finding new ones are probably the most important measures from a climatological point of view.

About Energy,

In Holland some 15% of CO² expulsion (perhaps not the right expression) is from traffic and transport. Industry and energy plants are the main source. By comparison, for many years political and environmentalist attention has been focussed far more on cleaning up (motor) transport and cars than industry or energy supply outlets. The only CO² free energy source capable of satisfying our large needs, the nuclear one, has been demonised and is rejected by many of the same people who believe in the greenhouse doomsday scenario. Yet I wonder what is worse, assuming the published disadvantages and dangers of nuclear energy are all true, an occassional nuclear plant accident like Tsjernobyl on the one hand or being slowly cooked, dehydrated, flooded or suffocated.

Some other thoughts,

Whatever bad we do to flora, fauna or the climate the main reason for our impact is numbers. There are to many breathing, breeding, deforesting, polluting, energy wasting and consuming human beings. According to the main religions we must be fertile and indeed we are. We're not exactly on the brink of extinction I think. According to most economic models we also must grow. We all want, produce or have SUV’s, PC’s, fridges, airco’s, Gameboys or the latest soft drink-fatty snack variant. Some things we actually need.

If CO² levels are up so much and I have no reason to doubt most data, where are the correspondingly lower O² levels? Can athletes and the like continuously break records if O² levels have dropped, even a wee bit. The oxygen in the increased CO²level is all coming from whatever forms of human burning activity. At least according to the environmentalists, scientists or otherwise. Again where’s the dropped O²level? I am not denying anything just wondering and seeking clarification.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, get to work, there are plenty of his published papers online. Should keep you busy for a couple of years.

I can see it might take a while..

I was able to google this quite easily..Climate Change Predictions For Australia (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/projections2001.pdf)

After one has waded through this glitzy brochure, they can no longer ignore the facts, and must come to the conclusion; that by 2070 it might be hotter in Australia and there could be more rainfall.

The meticulously garnered data also allows that the opposite may be true.

It is clear to me, that only a crack team of the worlds smartest climatologists could have arrived at these precise conclusions.


I also recognize an agenda searching for a cause when I see one. However, I have to admit I have no credentials to verify my expertise in this regard..

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pollywog
As many have already written, it is complicated.
The majority of scientists think to various degrees that humans are the instigators or (large) contributors to the current changes in climate. What those climate changes precisely are hasn’t been exactly established yet. However scientists have also found out that climatological changes have sometimes happened rather fast in the past. A past before any human activity or activities on the current scale.

As the implications are enormous if the doom thinkers are mostly correct it is wise to take measures in control of greenhouse gasses and general pollution. These measures are beneficial anyway. Stopping deforestation, cleaning up the many sources of pollution all serve more than one purpose. Becoming more efficient with traditional energy sources and finding new ones are probably the most important measures from a climatological point of view.

What I think you are talking about is conservation, not modern environmentalism. There's a huge difference.

While a human-caused G.W. skeptic, I am also an active member of the MUCC (http://www.mucc.org/).

Compare their website and stated goals to groups like Earth First!, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the WWF, not to mention the ALF and the ELF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pollywog
As many have already written, it is complicated.
The majority of scientists think to various degrees that humans are the instigators or (large) contributors to the current changes in climate. I don't believe that this is true. Could you substantiate this claim

As the implications are enormous if the doom thinkers are mostly correct it is wise to take measures in control of greenhouse gasses and general pollution. The implications of various religions are enormous if they are correct. Perhaps we should take measures to ensure our salvation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for conservation and taking care of the environment I just don't think I should be scared into selling my SUV for some Henny Penny notion.

These measures are beneficial anyway. Stopping deforestation, cleaning up the many sources of pollution all serve more than one purpose. Becoming more efficient with traditional energy sources and finding new ones are probably the most important measures from a climatological point of view. Fine, but let's do it in a rational and measured way and not toss the baby out with the bath water on a "hunch".

About Energy,

Whatever bad we do to flora, fauna or the climate the main reason for our impact is numbers. There are to many breathing, breeding, deforesting, polluting, energy wasting and consuming human beings. There are? Can you support that proposition? How many humans are too many?

"Breathing?" What the hell is wrong with breathing?

There are to many...human beings. There is always suicide. If you really feel this way you might want to consider it. Can I have your stuff?

According to the main religions we must be fertile and indeed we are. So it is the fault of religion. Let's just outlaw it like they did in China. Sure helped their population growth didn't it.

We're not exactly on the brink of extinction I think. Ya' think? Really? By every measurable calculation we are in ZERO danger of that.

According to most economic models we also must grow. We all want, produce or have SUV’s, PC’s, fridges, airco’s, Gameboys or the latest soft drink-fatty snack variant. Some things we actually need. Therefore what? Bring your argument to a conclusion? So what if we all want "x"? What are the implications?

If CO² levels are up so much and I have no reason to doubt most data, where are the correspondingly lower O² levels? Can athletes and the like continuously break records if O² levels have dropped, even a wee bit. Sounds specious. Do you have any data?

The oxygen in the increased CO²level is all coming from whatever forms of human burning activity. At least according to the environmentalists, scientists or otherwise. Again where’s the dropped O²level? I am not denying anything just wondering and seeking clarification. I'm seeking clarification also. I have no idea what the implications of what you are saying. Could you clarify your thoughts here?

Do you know for a fact that there is increased levels of CO²? Do you know for a fact that they are "coming from whatever forms of human burning activity"?

What environmentalists? Which scientists? This type of information is so vague it is meaningless. Can you provide some links that could give us some direction?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cain
I love when blowhards like Peptoabysmal and other fanatic American ideologues imply -- or openly claim! -- global warming is a myth. *insert insidious images of evil government burearucracy over-regulating the cherished business class here*

Not coincidentially, the fiercest opposition to evolution also comes from the United States. (The fundamentalisms involved are not far removed; indeed, there's quite a bit of overlap.)

Oh, and the IPCC is a tool of the dominant communist influences inside the UN. :rolleyes:

What I am saying is that the proposed solutions to Global Warming are predicted by the creators of these solutions to do very little to solve the problem (somewhere around 6% improvement), yet are going to be very expensive to any family living in an industrialized nation. The business class will merely pass on the cost to the working class. The greatest monetary benefit of these plans will go to the bureaucrats working in the bloated agencies created to regulate Global Warming.

Global Warming itself may have more to do with natural cycles of the Earth than anything that puny mankind has done. Using it as a political agenda is akin to the "do it for the children" arguments used so often by socialists.

Can you say hysteria? :crazy:

[Cain]

Originally posted by Diamond


A classic straw man argument.

#124323 in a series of many.

Red flags, red flags, red flags. Someone on these forums has again glibly invoked the "straw man" accusation. Sarcasm, anyone? Or we can just re-read an original post, which is rather instructive:

Originally posted by Pepto:

What do you intend to do about it? Create some huge money-sucking bureauocracy to regulate world climate? Create some international organization that works like the stupid homeowners associations which have taken over U.S. suburbs and transformed them into socialist cells?

Anyway...

What I am saying is that the proposed solutions to Global Warming are predicted by the creators of these solutions to do very little to solve the problem (somewhere around 6% improvement), yet are going to be very expensive to any family living in an industrialized nation. The business class will merely pass on the cost to the working class. The greatest monetary benefit of these plans will go to the bureaucrats working in the bloated agencies created to regulate Global Warming.

You do realize that resulting floods in Bangladesh, to take one example, could kill millions and millions of poeple, right? We need to act immediately. We needed to act ten years ago, but no, the oil industry, along with the usual free-market fundamentalists, have been "manufacturing uncertainty" (to use the apropos phrasethat recently appeared in an excellent Salon article).

Global Warming itself may have more to do with natural cycles of the Earth than anything that puny mankind has done. Using it as a political agenda is akin to the "do it for the children" arguments used so often by socialists.

Ah yes, the "Nature is a hardy bitch" argument. It's not as though our very own National Academy of Sciences has expressed serious concern over human influences.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/environ/01060602.htm


Unfocused rant here: I find conservatives in general despicable. We're supposed to fear a communist invasion a la "Red Dawn," or Nicaragua insurgents taking over Texas, or Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but when it comes to a well-founded ecological crisis: oh bah, we're puny.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cain
You do realize that resulting floods in Bangladesh, to take one example, could kill millions and millions of poeple, right? We need to act immediately. We needed to act ten years ago, but no, the oil industry, along with the usual free-market fundamentalists, have been "manufacturing uncertainty".

"The sky is falling!!" "The sky is falling!!" :eek:

Sorry, but I don't begin taking action until the crisis is so severe that alarmists put two exclamation points at the ends of their sentences.

You and A_U_P haven't done that yet, so...

:slp:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cain

You do realize that resulting floods in Bangladesh, to take one example, could kill millions and millions of poeple, right? We need to act immediately. We needed to act ten years ago, but no, the oil industry, along with the usual free-market fundamentalists, have been "manufacturing uncertainty" (to use the apropos phrasethat recently appeared in an excellent Salon article).


None of the proposed solutions will stop this from happening. The money would be better spent on disaster relief for Bangladesh.


Unfocused rant here: I find conservatives in general despicable. We're supposed to fear a communist invasion a la "Red Dawn," or Nicaragua insurgents taking over Texas, or Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but when it comes to a well-founded ecological crisis: oh bah, we're puny.

Focused response: I only wish it were a leftist conspiracy. At least that would require some thought. The leftist liberals are all too willing to get suckered into socialist solutions that use emotional triggers as arguments.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Breathing?" What the hell is wrong with breathing?

Because you breathe out that nasty poisonous pollutant CO₂! Didn'tcha know?

Many people seem to think that CO₂ is a horrible pollutant...but then again, many people aren't plants.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by shanek
Many people seem to think that CO₂ is a horrible pollutant...but then again, many people aren't plants. And sadly, some are... ;)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Cain

You do realize that resulting floods in Bangladesh, to take one example, could kill millions and millions of poeple, right?

You know, I did a search on floods in Bangladesh. You do realize that there has been flooding there regularly (before Global warming becamse a big issue).

And, much of the problem has nothing to do with global warming; part of it has to do with logging in the area (which has left the area a bit unstable and the river prone to blockages).

See: https://www.oxfam.org.hk/english/cyberschool/topics/disaster/03_1.htm

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You know, I did a search on floods in Bangladesh. You do realize that there has been flooding there regularly (before Global warming becamse a big issue).

And, much of the problem has nothing to do with global warming; part of it has to do with logging in the area (which has left the area a bit unstable and the river prone to blockages).

See: https://www.oxfam.org.hk/english/cyberschool/topics/disaster/03_1.htm

Darn. There you go again. Checking the facts...

[RandFan]

I love when blowhards like Peptoabysmal and other fanatic American ideologues imply -- or openly claim! -- global warming is a myth. Your on my ignore list but I saw this little gem and couldn't help but respond.

Ahh the straw man, easy to make but easy to tear down.

The contention is that there is no consensus that humans are causing global warming or that we know to what extent there is global warming or for how long.

Fact: The earth goes through natural climatic cycles that are at times extreme.

Fact: We don't know what the cause of the current cycle is.

Fact: We don't know to what extent if any humans play a part. Scientists have theorized but there are opposing camps that interpret the data differently.

Fact: It wasn't that long ago that the Henny Penny's of the environmental movement were predicting a man made ice age.

Fact: We don't know how severe or how long the current cycle will last.

If you can disprove any of the above by all means do so. Otherwise stop making straw men.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thanks Kodiak,

AUP, in reference to the above, could you expand further on this "common" goal? Does the "goal" include the culling of humans?

Your logic here is flawed. Kodiac has put together a list of quotes from many individuals from many different organisations. I could do the same thing with Republican voters, for example. It proves nothing. Just because JK wants to drop the bomb, doesn't mean that Dubya is thinking of doing so.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You know, I did a search on floods in Bangladesh. You do realize that there has been flooding there regularly (before Global warming becamse a big issue).

And, much of the problem has nothing to do with global warming; part of it has to do with logging in the area (which has left the area a bit unstable and the river prone to blockages).

See: https://www.oxfam.org.hk/english/cyberschool/topics/disaster/03_1.htm

At least you agree that over logging is damaging the environment.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Because you breathe out that nasty poisonous pollutant CO₂! Didn'tcha know?

Many people seem to think that CO₂ is a horrible pollutant...but then again, many people aren't plants.

Strawman. It is all a matter of what provides a balanced state for the world. CO2 is not in itself bad, nor is anything that is present in the atmosphere. It is all a question of balance. The human body, for example, can maintain a homeostatic state quite well, until it is pushed to extremes, when it breaks down. The planet seems to have developed it's own homeostatic mechanisms, but the question is, can we as a species push it to the point of breaking down.

Man has already demonstrated the ability to wipe out whole species that people believed were too numerous to ever be troubled, the passenger pigeon, for example. The Gouldian finch was once widespread across Australia, is now reduced to a few token populations. I don't think people should ever underestimate mankinds capacity to be desctructive. I can come up a few examples if you want.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Strawman.

No, it isn't. Many GW advocates call CO₂ a pollutant.

[crackmonkey]

Interestingly, data from ice cores show that the atmosphere during the last Ice Age was considerably higher in CO2 than today. Apparently, the CO2/warming connection isn't quite so cu-and-dried.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


At least you agree that over logging is damaging the environment.

I'm looking for such a statement by Segnosaur. I can't find it.:confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't. Many GW advocates call CO₂ a pollutant.

Did I? Pollution is a matter of definition. Salt is also a polutant in fresh water but normal in the sea.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Your logic here is flawed. Not at all. You are the one talking about a "common" goal.

Who decides what that goal is?

Kodiac has put together a list of quotes from many individuals from many different organisations. I could do the same thing with Republican voters, for example. It proves nothing. Just because JK wants to drop the bomb, doesn't mean that Dubya is thinking of doing so. Misses my point? You need just answer the question, what is the common goal and who gets to decide?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it isn't. Many GW advocates call CO₂ a pollutant. Absolutely true. California just passed stringent emission standards for the single and express purpose of reducing CO₂. Grey-out Davis and others implied that it was a pollutant.

John & Ken, local talk show hosts had arguments with a number of congress people who argued that it was.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Interestingly, data from ice cores show that the atmosphere during the last Ice Age was considerably higher in CO2 than today. Apparently, the CO2/warming connection isn't quite so cu-and-dried.

You are not correct.


Check this article (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-080803A)


............"The air's carbon dioxide concentration in the previous interglacial warm periods (stages 9.3, 7.5, 5.5) seems to have been no more than 300 ppm. But the current carbon dioxide level -- about 370 ppm -- is much higher and yet the Holocene period that we are living in now is still comparatively cooler. "...........

At least in the Antarctic, temperatures have been much higher than today with lower CO2 concentrations.

That said introducing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases into a climatic system we are nowhere near understanding is not unlike allowing a 5 year old to take a screwdriver to the International Space Station's life support system.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nikk
That said introducing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases into a climatic system we are nowhere near understanding is not unlike allowing a 5 year old to take a screwdriver to the International Space Station's life support system. Poor analogy, the likelihood for harm is quantifiable for the 5-year-old with the screwdriver.

Could you tell us (based on scientific data) what the likelihood for real harm is in regards to greenhouse gases?

Humans by the very act of living in close nit societies create the potential for destroying the human race via a mutant virus. We could all be destroyed in a matter of weeks if a previously undiscovered large meteorite were to slam into the earth.

To what extent should humans alter their behavior based on supposition and conjecture?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
Poor analogy, the likelihood for harm is quantifiable for the 5-year-old with the screwdriver.

Could you tell us (based on scientific data) what the likelihood for real harm is in regards to greenhouse gases?

Humans by the very act of living in close nit societies create the potential for destroying the human race via a mutant virus. We could all be destroyed in a matter of weeks if a previously undiscovered large meteorite were to slam into the earth.

To what extent should humans alter their behavior based on supposition, conjecture and a remote possibility of harm?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Absolutely true. California just passed stringent emission standards for the single and express purpose of reducing CO₂. Grey-out Davis and others implied that it was a pollutant.

John & Ken, local talk show hosts had arguments with a number of congress people who argued that it was.

An excess can be regarded as a pollutant.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not at all. You are the one talking about a "common" goal.

Who decides what that goal is?

Misses my point? You need just answer the question, what is the common goal and who gets to decide?

For example, at present, reducing greenhouse gas could be considered to be the common goal. This reduction infringes on the short term interests of various interests.

The recent SARS epidemic was another example. Businesses and individuals had to be forced to comply with stringent quanantine requirements.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Did I?

Did I say you did?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
An excess can be regarded as a pollutant.

Even in the face of the mounds of evidence that such an excess will result in the increase in planetary flora, thus bringing the levels back into balance?

You'd think as much as the environmentalists whine about global defoliation (not that that's really happening) that they'd welcome the CO₂ increases!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You know, I did a search on floods in Bangladesh. You do realize that there has been flooding there regularly (before Global warming becamse a big issue).

And, much of the problem has nothing to do with global warming; part of it has to do with logging in the area (which has left the area a bit unstable and the river prone to blockages).

See: https://www.oxfam.org.hk/english/cyberschool/topics/disaster/03_1.htm

Bangladesh experiences these floods in part because of an influential geographical feature: the Himilayas, which affects the intensity of monsoons. Monsoons vary in intensity. Several countries in Asia have a "monsoon season". Every year people die in floods, probably since pre-history. A good solution to save lives would be to blast the Himilayas into oblivian.

As a side note, the towering Himilayas that influence wet rainy conditions in South. South East Asia, also influence the dry conditions in Mongolia

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Have there been measurable statistical aberations documented in various parts of the world?

I know there have been recently in Canada, especially north of the Arctic Circle, in Alaska, the Himilayas....

unfortunately anecdotes are also used in these same areas, where older people say, "Have never seen weather like this in my life time" (50 to 60 years of adult life). The human life span is short, and most of the weather stations in Northern Canada, Iceland have only been there since the 1940s. Records are lacking prior to the 40s.

There are so many things affecting weather, regionally and globally.

Earth's tilt on axis, oscillations, geography, volcanic activity, the melting of Ice caps and glaciers the last 15 millenia, densities of large bodies of water (warm vs cool water aloft).

The concern I have though is that we may choose not to curb our use of polluting materials because it is inconvenient and there is not substantial proof that human activity is affecting the climate.

Global climate is not a liberal agenda.

Weather/ climate has been an obsession of humans since we understood that there are good times to gather, or plant and harvest.

If human activity has little affect on such a complicated system, do we continue to use resources as though they are infinate? Do we continue to pollute because we believe the planet is "self correcting"? Do we stop looking for alternate solutions? Do we just attribute all statistical aberations as something that will pass, and time will tell if human activity does affect weather?

We are beginning to understand some more things about weather: oscilations (though they vary from 1 to 3 times a decade, and intensities vary over decades) illustrate that aberations can occur within life times. Global warming has been occuring for 15,000 years (with a cool century or two here and there). Civilisations have grown in favourable conditions and been obliterated by unfavourable climate conditions. Weather is fical, and human history has been affected constantly by changes. We are obsessed with weather because or survival (individually to whole societies) is based on weather changes. Disease carrying organsism's populations wax and wane depending on conditions. Food yield, property values, and industies, and economies are affected by weather, so we continue to obsess about it.

[crackmonkey]

Nikk -
Ice cores were taken about a decade ago showing higher CO2 concentrations. I referred to cores from the last Ice Age, not an interglacial. Your article discusses interglacial atmospheric CO2 concentration.
That said, the authors of your article conclude that atmospheric CO2 concentration can't have much bearing on temperature... I have to say that I agree with them there. Do you endorse this as well?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Even in the face of the mounds of evidence that such an excess will result in the increase in planetary flora, thus bringing the levels back into balance?

You'd think as much as the environmentalists whine about global defoliation (not that that's really happening) that they'd welcome the CO₂ increases!

What is causing concern is a rapid change in climate. Rapid change = disorder and chaos, one of the fundamental laws of the universe. That spells trouble for us humans.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What is causing concern is a rapid change in climate. Rapid change = disorder and chaos, one of the fundamental laws of the universe. That spells trouble for us humans.

There's no evidence that the current climate change is any more drastic or rapid than the one leading up to the Medieval Warm Period. And far from spelling trouble for us humans, that led to one of the most productive and enlightened times in human history.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For example, at present, reducing greenhouse gas could be considered to be the common goal. This reduction infringes on the short term interests of various interests.

The recent SARS epidemic was another example. Businesses and individuals had to be forced to comply with stringent quanantine requirements. You are still missing my point. Who decides when to inact rules based on unproven theory with an opposing school of thought.

SARS is not equivalant since both its cause and control is demonstrably tied to human behavior.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Nikk -
Ice cores were taken about a decade ago showing higher CO2 concentrations. I referred to cores from the last Ice Age, not an interglacial. Your article discusses interglacial atmospheric CO2 concentration.
That said, the authors of your article conclude that atmospheric CO2 concentration can't have much bearing on temperature... I have to say that I agree with them there. Do you endorse this as well?


Ok so you are saying that there is data that shows significant rises in CO2 during or preceding glacial periods and presumably it falls in the warmer interglacials. This is counter intuitive and I certainly haven't heard of it which is why I thought you were wrong, but as I have only an amateur interest in the subject I could easily have missed it. Do you have an online reference.

The main reason I linked to the article was to illustrate the immense complexity of the subject. There is certainly a scientific consensus at the moment that global warming is real and is largely a result of CO2/Methane increases, there are also impressive dissenting voices.

The authors of the article concluded that local antarctic temperatures seemed to have little clearcut connection with global CO2 variations but this is only partly relevant to our current problem. Greenhouse gas variations in the past have been driven by interactions between a range of natural planetary processes and these have interacted with climatic changes such as glacial periods.

What is unique about the present is that humans have imposed unusually rapid increases in "greenhouse gases" upon a dynamic system in which significant tempereture changes have been the norm for hundreds of thousands of years. So far we have no evidence of similar events occuring in the past which could be used in climate models. And we have no idea what the result will be. Hence my space station analogy.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by RandFan
Poor analogy, the likelihood for harm is quantifiable for the 5-year-old with the screwdriver.

Could you tell us (based on scientific data) what the likelihood for real harm is in regards to greenhouse gases?

Humans by the very act of living in close nit societies create the potential for destroying the human race via a mutant virus. We could all be destroyed in a matter of weeks if a previously undiscovered large meteorite were to slam into the earth.

To what extent should humans alter their behavior based on supposition and conjecture?

No, I think its quite a good analogy. The 5 year old's tinkering could kill all the crew our tinkering could kill quite a lot of the crew of spaceship earth, ( a twee phrase I know ) eg by causing major crop failures.

I am afraid your second para is plain silly. My whole point is neither I nor anyone else can answer that question yet with any precision, nor did I purport to do so.

As to your third and fourth paragraphs the question is rather vague but the worse the consequences of a potential risk the more effort it is worth to avoid it. The current consensus among climatologists is that global warming due to human action is a real risk. Clearly there are dissenting voices and the science has plenty of holes, but the same could be said of the theory of evolution once upon a time. Copernicus and Galileo weren't flavour of the month either.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nikk
Ok so you are saying that there is data that shows significant rises in CO2 during or preceding glacial periods and presumably it falls in the warmer interglacials. This is counter intuitive and I certainly haven't heard of it which is why I thought you were wrong, but as I have only an amateur interest in the subject I could easily have missed it. Do you have an online reference.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

[crackmonkey]

Thank you, Shanek.
One caveat... it's been over a decade since I studied this (albeit somewhat briefly) in college, so I wouldn't be the one to give much in-depth analysis to this data...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nikk
No, I think its quite a good analogy. Thinking that is a good analogy won't make it so.

The 5 year old's tinkering could kill all the crew our tinkering could kill quite a lot of the crew of spaceship earth, ( a twee phrase I know ) eg by causing major crop failures. And genetically engineered crops could create a mutant virus that would wipe out the entire human species.

That something could happen does not mean that it will. Decisions should be based on the likelihood of an event and not the possibility of an event.

We know the likelihood of the 5-year-old. We DON'T know the likelihood of human behavior causing global warming.

HUGE difference.

I am afraid your second para is plain silly. It's silly? Are you kidding?

RandFan
Could you tell us (based on scientific data) what the likelihood for real harm is in regards to greenhouse gases?[/b] I hate to break the news to you but any threat and the necessity of humans to focus on that threat must be based on the likelihood of that threat. The answer to that question is fundamental. Calling it silly is blind ignorance.

My whole point is neither I nor anyone else can answer that question yet with any precision, nor did I purport to do so. Then why is this even a subject for discussion?

Jesus Christ might come back tomorrow, should I start going to church?

As to your third and fourth paragraphs the question is rather vague but the worse the consequences of a potential risk the more effort it is worth to avoid it. What question is rather vague? Could you clarify?

There are many threats to earth and mankind both real and imagined. We can waste resources chasing down imagined ones but I think it wise to deal with the real ones.

To make a decision we have to know the likelihood of an event otherwise we are just thrashing about in the dark.

The current consensus among climatologists is that global warming due to human action is a real risk. Clearly there are dissenting voices and the science has plenty of holes, but the same could be said of the theory of evolution once upon a time. Copernicus and Galileo weren't flavour of the month either. The same could be said of lots of theories that turned out to be both valid and invalid.

This does nothing to further your argument. The consensus of scientists at one time was that the mass of the sun was too great for particles to escape its gravitational pull.

My question is valid and deserves an answer.

To what extent should humans alter their behavior based on supposition, conjecture and a remote possibility of harm?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Global climate is not a liberal agenda.

You're right. It's a haven for socialists and anti-capitalists.

[Jon_in_london]

Shanek's link:


High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.


ie a 0.008 to 0.01% increase in CO2 levels was detected from between 200 to 1000 years AFTER degalciation. Golly gosh! that just proves that man-made CO2 emmisions are the cause of the forthcoming climatic apocalypse!! ;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What is causing concern is a rapid change in climate. Rapid change = disorder and chaos, one of the fundamental laws of the universe. That spells trouble for us humans.

Perhaps you need to state for us how you define rapid change. Now this whole topic started with talk on the current heat waves in Europe. According to this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3141253.stm) "France has its hottest summer in half a century" and that does not look so rapid or spell out global warming to me. Maybe -- and that is a big maybe -- if they said it was the hottest summer on record I would give it a second look, otherwise it's just Earth being Earth.

[Cain]

You know, I did a search on floods in Bangladesh. You do realize that there has been flooding there regularly (before Global warming becamse a big issue).

I assumed this was already well known. We often hear of floods killing thousands of people in the region.

And, much of the problem has nothing to do with global warming; part of it has to do with logging in the area (which has left the area a bit unstable and the river prone to blockages).

I never posited a direct causal relationship. I said part of Bangladesh will become flooded. Not flooding; flooded.

That said, isn't flood a weird word? Flood, flooded, flooding. Crazy.

________________________________
None of the proposed solutions will stop this from happening. The money would be better spent on disaster relief for Bangladesh.

You could certainly make the economic argument that instead of directing resources to curbing global warming that we instead try to adjust. The philosopher Peter Singer tackles most of the ethical issues surrounding global warming in the first chapter of his excellent book _One World_. However, the argument central to this thread, or so I thought, was the role played by human beings in global warming. If we're responsible, and by "we" I'm referring to those of us who live in rich first world countries that use the atmosphere as a personal dump, then we *owe* the people who will suffer (e.g. Bangladeshies) not as a matter of kindness or generosity, but economic justice.

Backtracking for a second. The longer we continue to ignore global warming ("more research" as the mantra of the Bush administration), then of course there's less we can do prevent the worst dangers. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Singer confronts the argument of prevention-as-sinkhole in the book mentioned earlier.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Bangladesh experiences these floods in part because of an influential geographical feature: the Himilayas, which affects the intensity of monsoons.

I know; they can also be influenced by ocean currents (el Nino anyone), or many other natural factors.

I just wanted to point out that what many people may see as the fault of 'global warming' may either be a) something natural, or b) the result of other human activities that have nothing to do with actions by the industrial world (such as carbon dioxide output)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Perhaps you need to state for us how you define rapid change. Now this whole topic started with talk on the current heat waves in Europe. According to this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3141253.stm) "France has its hottest summer in half a century" and that does not look so rapid or spell out global warming to me. Maybe -- and that is a big maybe -- if they said it was the hottest summer on record I would give it a second look, otherwise it's just Earth being Earth.

Hottest day on record in England, 100 degrees F.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I know; they can also be influenced by ocean currents (el Nino anyone), or many other natural factors.

I just wanted to point out that what many people may see as the fault of 'global warming' may either be a) something natural, or b) the result of other human activities that have nothing to do with actions by the industrial world (such as carbon dioxide output)

And if you care to read some of the papers published by my friend, you will see that ocean currents constitute a large part of their studies.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Hottest day on record in England, 100 degrees F.

Try as I might I did not find evidence of that. The closest I came was from this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3127669.stm)...


Britain has been basking in temperatures of up to 35.9C, falling just short of the all-time record.

London reached 35.3C - the highest ever recorded in the capital - as the UK enjoyed the hottest day of the year so far.


Care to show us your source?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Try as I might I did not find evidence of that. The closest I came was from this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3127669.stm)...



Care to show us your source?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588319633.html

the bookies have lost a lot of money, apparently.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588319633.html

the bookies have lost a lot of money, apparently.

Fair enough. As promissed, I gave it a second look. I still see no evidence or backed up claim of global warming. New York had one of the worst winters in recorded history yet no one is running on the streets screaming global cooling.

[shanek]

Hey, here, according to the NOAA website, is a list of record low temperatures in Arkansas during the first three weeks of May 2002:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ftproot/LZK/HTML/recs0502.htm

If record-high temperatures prove global warming, this must prove global cooling! Look out, everyone—the ice age is coming!!! :eek:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Hey, here, according to the NOAA website, is a list of record low temperatures in Arkansas during the first three weeks of May 2002:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ftproot/LZK/HTML/recs0502.htm

If record-high temperatures prove global warming, this must prove global cooling! Look out, everyone—the ice age is coming!!! :eek:

Global Warming does not preclude the occurance of localised lower temperatures or extreme weather events, including extreme cold spells.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Global Warming does not preclude the occurance of localised lower temperatures or extreme weather events, including extreme cold spells.

I can flip what you said to make a blanket statement about global cooling.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Global Warming does not preclude the occurance of localised lower temperatures or extreme weather events, including extreme cold spells.

Ah—so cooling is evidence of global warming! :rolleyes:

The GW guys have it made...High temperatures, global warming! Low temperatures, global warming! Too much rain, global warming! Too little rain, global waming! More hurricanes, global warning! Fewer hurricanes, global warming!

They've "predicted" everything under the sun so they can't possibly be wrong...which doesn't make them right; it just makes them woo-woo.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Ah—so cooling is evidence of global warming! :rolleyes:

The GW guys have it made...High temperatures, global warming! Low temperatures, global warming! Too much rain, global warming! Too little rain, global waming! More hurricanes, global warning! Fewer hurricanes, global warming!

They've "predicted" everything under the sun so they can't possibly be wrong...which doesn't make them right; it just makes them woo-woo.

When there is a plague on, some people's health actually improves. Read some of those papers I referred to, and tell me if this guy is a woo-woo.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


When there is a plague on, some people's health actually improves. Read some of those papers I referred to, and tell me if this guy is a woo-woo.

I read them and as shanek put it, he is a woo-woo.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I read them and as shanek put it, he is a woo-woo.

What part of them? Shanek is putting forward a bunch of strawmen and ad-hom as an argument.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What part of them? Shanek is putting forward a bunch of strawmen and ad-hom as an argument.

The whole thing; it essentially stars off with an assumption that Global Warming is there and then puts in evidence to prove it. It makes sense if we know GW exists, but we do not there for it's of no use

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The whole thing; it essentially stars off with an assumption that Global Warming is there and then puts in evidence to prove it. It makes sense if we know GW exists, but we do not there for it's of no use

No, the theory was investigated, and models are being used to prove or disprove it. The start the models off in the past, for example, to a known point, then let them run up to the present, seeing how closely they track reality, and then see what they predict. The record of 100F for GB fits in with the predictions of these models.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No, the theory was investigated, and models are being used to prove or disprove it. The start the models off in the past, for example, to a known point, then let them run up to the present, seeing how closely they track reality, and then see what they predict. The record of 100F for GB fits in with the predictions of these models.

Care to address any of THIS (http://www.envirotruth.org/myths.cfm) , a_u_p? Quite a bit of contrary data there...

[Lyle Beaudoin]

I see that Envirotruth is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. It's right at the bottom of the page.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is "a conservative, free market foundation". It says so right on their masthead. They have a very interesting about us (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html) page too.

Not much of a source for scientific information at all, is it? Nice try, though.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
Not much of a source for scientific information at all, is it? Nice try, though.

About as nice as you attacking the source instead of the information. What's wrong with being honest about who they are?

LB, care to address the data??





(I predict cricket noises...)

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Do I care to address the data? No, not really. I think it'd be a waste of time at this point. I'd just get painted as some pinko commie hippie symp or something and that'd be that.

So why bother?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
Do I care to address the data? No, not really. I think it'd be a waste of time at this point. I'd just get painted as some pinko commie hippie symp or something and that'd be that.

So why bother?

Sure, why bother to actually support your claims??? Far easier to just insult people... :rolleyes:

I challenge you to find just one instance where either Kodiak, Grammatron, or myself have ever made such personal aspersions against anyone who has argued in favor of Global Warming. If you can't, then stop whining and argue the data!

[Lyle Beaudoin]

I'm not insulting anyone. I just think Kodiak's source is heavily suspect. They're interested in promoting the free market. Do you think that anything casting free market economics in a bad light would be found there? Probably not.

Nor am I whining, thankyouverymuch.

I suppose I could link directly to the original UN report on climate change rather than someone else's politically filterered selective interpretation of that report, but I really don't think there's a point.

As for your challenge, hmmm...

The GW guys have it made...High temperatures, global warming! Low temperatures, global warming! Too much rain, global warming! Too little rain, global waming! More hurricanes, global warning! Fewer hurricanes, global warming!

They've "predicted" everything under the sun so they can't possibly be wrong...which doesn't make them right; it just makes them woo-woo.

How condescending.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
I'm not insulting anyone. I just think Kodiak's source is heavily suspect.

You insulted the source. It doesn't work that way. This is a skeptic's forum. You argue the data, or you expect to get yourself jumped on by the likes of me.

Nor am I whining, thankyouverymuch.

Your whole "why bother" comment was whining from start to finish!

I suppose I could link directly to the original UN report on climate change rather than someone else's politically filterered selective interpretation of that report, but I really don't think there's a point.

No, there isn't a point. The only point would be in specifically addressing the data in Kodiak's source, which you refuse to do.

As for your challenge, hmmm...

How condescending.

No, it isn't. It's just the truth. These are the same tactics that homeopaths and psychics and government and other woo-woos use: Set it up so that you're right in every possible eventuality.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
I just think Kodiak's source is heavily suspect.


They are the website presenting the information, but they are not the source of the data!

If you bother to look at just a couple of the links, you'd find that the information comes from places like NASA, NOAA, Harvard, the U. of Virginia, Carleton and Guelph Universities in Canada, and the U. of Alabama, just for starters.

Suspect the site all you want, but ignoring and castigating the data exposes both your bias and your ignorance. :(

I'd prefer it if your arguments suffered from neither...

[Lyle Beaudoin]

That site's only interested in putting forth information that makes their ideals look right. They're honest about it too, as you pointed out. They're biased. Their information is way too filtered to be used in thorough research. If it makes Free Market economics look bad, it won't be on that site.

As for me, my jury's still out. I'm not a meteorologist, I'm into radios and microwaves and antennas and astronomy. I'm not qualified to extrapolate all the data pouring in. I seriously doubt every single ecological disaster can be pinned on global warming, but I also understand just how complicated climate study can really be. It seems best to me to err on the side of caution anyway. At worst, the air would be a lighter shade of brown and different industries would become lucrative. The horror!

But I've never been impressed with arguments against Global Warming when they're put forth by people with political or financial interests rather than scientific. Your source will only tell the parts of the story it wants to tell. If the facts weaken their political position, the facts won't be presented.

The reverse is true as well. I wouldn't take the opinions of Greenpeace or PETA as gospel (so to speak) either.

Especially PETA. :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
But I've never been impressed with arguments against Global Warming when they're put forth by people with political or financial interests rather than scientific.

Then you should be really impressed with the information I provided, as the information all comes from scientific and scholarly reports and studies.

The information was only gathered by Envirotruth, and then presented for all to see. Their conclusion is "we don't know...the jury's still out.

That isn't the position of groups like PETA, the Sierra Club, the WWF, Greenpeace, Earth First!, the ELF, or the ALF.

Now will you address the data I provided?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
But I've never been impressed with arguments against Global Warming when they're put forth by people with political or financial interests rather than scientific.

Then why are you impressed with arguments for GW, when they're put forth by people with the same motivations?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by shanek


Then why are you impressed with arguments for GW, when they're put forth by people with the same motivations?

Which arguments are those? And where did I support them?

I think the whole thing is a big mishmash. The science is difficult enough without worrying about the political angles. I don't know if Global Warming is a solid argument against pouring smoke into the air, but I'm damned if I can think of a good one for doing so. When it comes to global warming, I'm for erring on the side of caution. Like I said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
Which arguments are those? And where did I support them?

I apologize. That was the impression I got from your post, but now that I went back and reread it I saw how wrong it was. I should have read it more carefully the first time. Sorry.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Then you should be really impressed with the information I provided, as the information all comes from scientific and scholarly reports and studies.

The information was only gathered by Envirotruth, and then presented for all to see. Their conclusion is "we don't know...the jury's still out.

That isn't the position of groups like PETA, the Sierra Club, the WWF, Greenpeace, Earth First!, the ELF, or the ALF.

Now will you address the data I provided?

I suggest reading their debunking of Myths 10 and 11. I did. I'm not sure I'd assume the rest of their debunkings are any more objective than those. Links to the quotes they attribute to other scientists would've been nice so we the viewing audience could see what else they have to say. Going as far as finding the papers these scientists have written isn't always easy. It wouldn't be beyond Envirotruth to cut out the "however"s that may have followed. All I see is some people saying one thing and others saying another. Not being in that peer group of environmental scientists and meteorologists and such, it's tough to say who's right and who's wrong.

The thing is, Envirotruth considers the case closed and I don't. Their "debunkings" leave me asking too many questions. I don't think water levels will rise all that much, but what about salinity levels? More even temperatures across the globe may be a result of global warming, and they describe this as "tranquil". But they don't mention the effects this would have on ocean currents at all. They assume that a more even temperature distribution across the globe would be good. I don't. I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for their idea that the vast majority of scientists would benefit from tying in their results to global warming either.

Where do they say "the jury's still out"? They seem to say "It's myths and lies." They found what they were looking for and stopped.

I could provide links saying the IPCC is right, then you could provide more links saying the IPCC is wrong, but what would that accomplish? Who is qualified to say which links are the most accurate? I'm not, are you?

But I know a good argument when I see one, and I don't see one at Envirotruth. Sorry.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by shanek


I apologize. That was the impression I got from your post, but now that I went back and reread it I saw how wrong it was. I should have read it more carefully the first time. Sorry.

No problem. I can see flying off the handle as it were, since I'm the one who barged into the thread.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


About as nice as you attacking the source instead of the information. What's wrong with being honest about who they are?

LB, care to address the data??





(I predict cricket noises...)

That's what I was asking first. Read some of Tony Hirst's online published papers, and tell me what is wrong with them, or the science behind them

You guys remind me of the creationists arguing against evolution.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's what I was asking first. Read some of Tony Hirst's online published papers, and tell me what is wrong with them, or the science behind them

You guys remind me of the creationists arguing against evolution.

Of course, all we ask for are facts and not conclusions, how unscientific of us :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Of course, all we ask for are facts and not conclusions, how unscientific of us :rolleyes:

There is a whole truckload of facts there, online. Which ones do you disagree with?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There is a whole truckload of facts there, online. Which ones do you disagree with?

Provide me with one Fact; I can't disagree with facts, as they are by definition an actual occurrence. I can, however, disagree with someone trying to put forward their opinion with out evidence and claim it as fact.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Then you should be really impressed with the information I provided, as the information all comes from scientific and scholarly reports and studies.

The information was only gathered by Envirotruth, and then presented for all to see. Their conclusion is "we don't know...the jury's still out.

That isn't the position of groups like PETA, the Sierra Club, the WWF, Greenpeace, Earth First!, the ELF, or the ALF.

Now will you address the data I provided?

This http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/suppiah_1998a.pdf is put out by the CSIRO, by reputable scientists. What is the flaw in their reasoning?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Provide me with one Fact; I can't disagree with facts, as they are by definition an actual occurrence. I can, however, disagree with someone trying to put forward their opinion with out evidence and claim it as fact.

RTFR. It contains many facts and observations, presented in a scientific manner.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


RTFR. It contains many facts and observations, presented in a scientific manner.

Well, here are some facts:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/politics/smallb.htm

What is wrong with those facts that, or better yet, how does the data you provide negate those facts?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well, here are some facts:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/politics/smallb.htm

What is wrong with those facts that, or better yet, how does the data you provide negate those facts?



Final Report 1994-1997 2
2. Present climate variations and interactions
Globally, surface temperature measured in standard meteorological screens at 1.5 m above the ground has increased by 0.3 to 0.6°C since the late 19th century. In Australia, the average temperature has increased by 0.76°C from 1910 to 1990. This estimate accounts types of instruments and their changes and urban heat island effects, mainly by excluding data from stations affected by these problems. There are however major differences between measured temperatures near the surface and those obtained from satellites which measure temperature over a considerable depth of the lower atmosphere. These differences are not surprising as the measurements are of different quantities. Moreover, the satellite-measured 19-year temperature record is too short to determine long term trends (see the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research World Wide Web site at: http://www.dar.csiro.au/Christy.htm.
Observed records of wind and rainfall have been analysed to understand within-season and year-to-year variations of the Australian monsoon. The primary purpose is to learn about the relationships between monsoon behaviour and the cross-equatorial flow of air from south-east Asia.
A strong relationship has been found between the Australian monsoon onset, rainfall variability over northern Australia and wind surges from the South China Sea and west coast of Australia, but the relationship is weak once the monsoon is well established.
This work provides information useful for short-term (five to ten days) forecasting of monsoon activity, particularly the active and break periods of the monsoon in tropical Australia based on Climate Change under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in Northern Australia
Final Report 1994-1997 3
wind variations over the South China Sea and West Australian coast. The results were also used as a basis for assessing the realism of simulations of the present-day climate from CSIRO global and regional climate models.
3. Temperature and rainfall changes under enhanced greenhouse
conditions
Global climate models (GCMs) suggest a warming of 0.4 to 1.4°C inland and 0.3 to 1.0°C in northern coastal Australia by the year 2030. This range accounts for the uncertainties about future greenhouse gas emission scenarios (low case is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario IS92c, and high case is IS92e) and the IPCC estimated range of global climate sensitivities (from 1.5 to 4.5°C equilibrium global warming for doubled CO2
conditions). See Appendix II for more details.
Simulated changes of winter rainfall by GCMs with simplified oceans (slab models) and models with full ocean circulation features (coupled-ocean models) broadly agree on decreases in northern Australia. Winter rainfall decreases by 0 to 8 per cent by 2030, although winter rainfall is low except in south-east Queensland.
Summer rainfall changes simulated under enhanced greenhouse conditions over northern Australia are model dependent. Changes simulated by five slab-ocean GCMs indicate increases from 2 to 12 per cent by the year 2030. As in other slab-ocean models, the CSIRO Mark 2 slab-ocean GCM also simulates an increase in summer rainfall in northern Australia.
Summer rainfall changes simulated by five coupled-ocean models show a decrease of 0 to 8 per cent by the year 2030. The latest CSIRO coupled-ocean model also simulates a decrease in summer rainfall in northern Australia.
Changes in both temperature and rainfall would be up to twice as large by 2070 compared with estimates for 2030.
Coupled-ocean model simulations are more realistic than slab-ocean experiments in that they can directly simulate climate change under transient conditions (steadily increasing greenhouse gas concentrations), as will be the case during the next century. Slab-ocean models simulate the results of an “equilibrium” climate change, that is, a stable climatic state after an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. However, coupled–ocean model transient results are dependent on ocean behaviour which may not as yet be reliably simulated.
The regional climate model of CSIRO (DARLAM) simulates much more detailed and realistic rainfall patterns for present conditions when nested in the CSIRO Mark 2 slab-ocean GCM.
DARLAM simulates an increase in summer rainfall in the western half and a decrease in the eastern half of tropical Australia under equilibrium doubled carbon dioxide (2xCO2) conditions.
Climate Change under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in Northern Australia
Final Report 1994-1997 4
There is a need to nest DARLAM in the CSIRO coupled-ocean model to get more detailed information about rainfall change under simulated transient warming conditions.
4. Simulations of northern Australian climatic variability during the
past century
The CSIRO atmospheric GCM has been used to simulate climatic variability during the past century. Observed sea surface temperatures since 1871 were used to represent the ocean.
Results of five simulations of the atmospheric GCM using observed sea surface temperature indicate that there is good potential to predict ENSO impacts under present or enhanced greenhouse conditions once modelling of the oceanic processes is improved. However, problems remain regarding coarse spatial resolution and inadequate simulation of smaller-scale weather phenomena such as intense tropical depressions and tropical cyclones.
5. El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon
Different models give different results about ENSO under enhanced greenhouse conditions.
Both coarse resolution GCMs and fine resolution models indicate that the ENSO cycle
continues to occur under simulated enhanced greenhouse conditions. The CSIRO fine resolution
ENSO model (which simulates present ENSO events very realistically), run under nearequilibrium
2xCO2 conditions, simulates more frequent and weaker ENSO events, with
increased average rainfall over northern Australia. However, the coarse resolution global
coupled-ocean GCMs do not give such an increase in Australian rainfall. While there has been a significant improvement in the ability of models to simulate ENSO, at present there is no clear consensus on how ENSO might change under transient enhanced greenhouse conditions. It is possible that the response may change with time as the climate system moves from a transient warming to an equilibrium state (but this will not occur until well beyond 2100). Clearly, the nature of the transient response is a matter of high priority for further research.
6. Extreme events including tropical cyclones
Simulations using DARLAM nested in the CSIRO slab-ocean GCM indicate increases in heavy rainfall intensity during spring and summer under enhanced greenhouse conditions. Weather systems that produce heavy rainfall in north and central Australia become more intense, with heavier rainfall. Observations show that annual heavy rainfall intensity has increased by over 50 per cent (statistically significant) since 1910 in the north-west, with a 60 per cent increase in autumn (not significant). In the north-east, annual heavy rainfall has increased by 15 per cent and autumn heavy rainfall increased by 30 per cent, but these changes are not significant.
Sensitivity studies indicate an increase in the number of hot days and a decrease in the number of cold days. Again, similar tendencies have been observed since 1950 in Australia.
Climate Change under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in Northern Australia
Final Report 1994-1997 5
Simulated tropical cyclones in the Coral Sea and off north-west Australia tend to form and travel further south under 2xCO2 conditions. There are also indications that tropical cyclones could become more intense. Both results need further investigation.
Moreover, results to date have been obtained using DARLAM nested in a slab-ocean GCM which gives changes under equilibrium 2xCO2 conditions. It will be valuable to examine the possible changes to extreme events and tropical cyclone behaviour under transient (nonequilibrium) conditions as simulated by the newer CSIRO coupled-ocean GCM.
As yet there is no international consensus about changes to tropical cyclone behaviour due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, apart from a probable moderate increase in intensity. Changes found in the CSIRO simulations need to be studied carefully to establish their physical basis and statistical significance.
7. Potential climate change impacts for northern Australia
Initial results of our efforts to simulate likely climate change under enhanced greenhouse
conditions suggest little room for complacency about potential impacts, despite large uncertainty.
The practical implications of possible reductions in rainfall, higher temperatures and rainfall intensities, and possible changes in ENSO and cyclone behaviour, suggest potential for widespread impacts across northern Australia. Such impacts are likely on coastal zones, ecosystems, agriculture, water resources, the mining industry, tourism, human health, fisheries, pests, disease, mangroves, coral reefs and low lying islands. These impacts would generally increase in magnitude until well after greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
1. Some significant degree of climate change across northern Australia now seems inevitable, and is likely to become increasingly apparent over the next 30-100 years as atmospheric equivalent CO2 concentrations exceed doubled pre-industrial concentrations. Changes are to be expected in both the average values and in the magnitude and frequency of extremes.
This means that long-term planning should not be predicated on the assumption that future climate statistics and resources will be as they were over the last 100 years. Significant adaptation to a changing climate will be necessary.
2. In particular, water supply, floods and drought frequency and severity, and the frequency of tropical cyclones and storm surges could change significantly. This has strong implications for the sustainable development of planned infrastructure including coastal developments, ports, bridges and urban centres.
Climate Change under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in Northern Australia
Final Report 1994-1997 6
3. Higher temperatures and a changing frequency of drought and fire could have increasing impacts on agriculture and forestry. Significant changes in management may be required to minimise costs, maximise benefits, and ensure sustainability.
4. Although there is a tendency for significant changes in the frequency of some extreme
weather events in Australia over the last 100 years, it is not yet clear whether these changes are related to warming due to natural variability or anthropogenic influences.
5. In seems likely that the relationship between rainfall in north-eastern Australia and the Southern Oscillation Index will continue under enhanced greenhouse conditions, although it may change. Thus seasonal rainfall predictions based on updated recent statistics may provide one means of adaptation to climate change.
6. Decadal and century scale climate change is expected to affect the present savanna and tropical ecosystems in northern Australia. Some animal and plant species may come under increasing stress, causing long-term change in species composition.
7. Coastal ecosystems will also be affected by sea-level rise and changes in runoff. Sea level is expected to rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of mid- and lowlatitude glaciers. An increase in temperature in the Antarctic region would initially lead to an increased accumulation of ice, but to increased meltwater contributing to sea-level rise beyond the twenty-first century.
8. Significant uncertainties remain in relation to the estimation of future climate. These can be reduced by: -
· moving to climate change scenario development based on improved transient coupled ocean GCMs;
· improving the ability of coupled-ocean GCMs to simulate ENSO behaviour under
present and enhanced greenhouse conditions;
· assessing the behaviour of tropical cyclones with DARLAM nested at fine resolution in
a coupled-ocean GCM.
9. Climate impact and adaptation assessment should be furthered through:-
· Development of versatile climate impact and adaptation models and methodologies for a number of key sectors and activities. These models should be developed and tested against observations as early as possible, so that these models can be used to assess the impacts of more reliable climate change scenarios as soon as these become available. Priority should be on the basis of potential sensitivity, impact model availability and stakeholder interest, and should include not only agriculture, water resources and coastal impacts, but also sectors such as health, transport, land planning and emergency services.
Climate Change under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in Northern Australia
· This work should be done through close collaboration between climate modellers in CSIRO and relevant researchers and authorities in northern Australia across a wide range of sectors and activities.
· More integrated impact and adaptation assessments should be carried out, taking account of economic costs and benefits where possible.
10. Climate change will have direct effects on rates of carbon-sequestration in soils, forests and regrowth vegetation which are vital to any greenhouse response strategy. Thus climate change influences should be factored in to carbon-sequestration modellin

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well, here are some facts:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/politics/smallb.htm

What is wrong with those facts that, or better yet, how does the data you provide negate those facts?

This is pretty stupid.



So far, the hearings have shown that climate science does not support the Kyoto Protocol to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2 percent, which is arbitrary, purely political and in no way science-based.

Also, the hearings revealed that the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific



Of course the figure of 5.2% is political, arbitrary and not based on science. Kyoto is not about making a scientific change, it is about trying to get the nations of the world to agree to a process for change. If we cannot even get something as basic as this off the ground, then any future attempts at reducing GW gases isn't going to work either. Pretty much the same as the selection process for the Olympics has nothing to do with sport and everything to do with politics also.

[a_unique_person]

Geophysical historical data do not support the claim that a warmer planet would be catastrophic. Studies of tree rings, ice cores and ocean sediment cores indicate that the Earth's temperature was considerably warmer than today at 1,000, 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. Global temperature changes, as rapid and large as those forecasted by climate models, have occurred in the past with no detrimental effects.



populations were much more unstable and migratory back then, there were also much lower population numbers. As I said at the start, do you think we are all going to be moving to Greenland. I don't think so.

The paper I refer to points out that large parts of the infrastructure and economic order will be upset. In our modern highly complex society, this could be disasterous.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


populations were much more unstable and migratory back then, there were also much lower population numbers. As I said at the start, do you think we are all going to be moving to Greenland. I don't think so.

The paper I refer to points out that large parts of the infrastructure and economic order will be upset. In our modern highly complex society, this could be disasterous.

Look you are missing the point here. I am arguing that there is no conclusive proof for global warming and not that humans have zero affect on the environment. In fact, humans have been messing with Earth since the beginning, from putting certain plants in locations where they never grew to putting certain animals in places they never existed. However, all that messing around have yet to destroy humans civilization, in fact humanity has been growing at grate rate for some time now.

To sum it up: Do humans affect environment? Yes. Are they destroying the world in the process? I have yet to see proof of that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Look you are missing the point here. I am arguing that there is no conclusive proof for global warming and not that humans have zero affect on the environment. In fact, humans have been messing with Earth since the beginning, from putting certain plants in locations where they never grew to putting certain animals in places they never existed. However, all that messing around have yet to destroy humans civilization, in fact humanity has been growing at grate rate for some time now.

To sum it up: Do humans affect environment? Yes. Are they destroying the world in the process? I have yet to see proof of that.

Humans are trying to control their effects on the earth in many ways now. For example, the spread of pests is causing many problems. I, for one, don't want to have to put up with fire ants.

None of these things will end the world, or the human race. They will make our experience of the world much more unpleasant.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Humans are trying to control their effects on the earth in many ways now. For example, the spread of pests is causing many problems. I, for one, don't want to have to put up with fire ants.

None of these things will end the world, or the human race. They will make our experience of the world much more unpleasant.

And I don't see evidence that things are getting more unpleasant. My life since day 1 has been getting more and more pleasant thanks to advancements in technology.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


And I don't see evidence that things are getting more unpleasant. My life since day 1 has been getting more and more pleasant thanks to advancements in technology.

Whether we are actually getting happier, once the basics are met, such as eduction, health etc, is very much a matter of debate. Use of anti-depressants is soaring. Many benefits are brought with technology. At the same time, we have a lucious green park out the front of our house. While I would have been able to walk barefoot through quite happily once, it has been invaded by bindi weed from somewhere overseas.

Also, consideration must also be given not to just what is good for humans, but for other species as well.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
All I see is some people saying one thing and others saying another. Not being in that peer group of environmental scientists and meteorologists and such, it's tough to say who's right and who's wrong.

Finally!...

As a human-caused global warming skeptic, I bid you welcome.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's what I was asking first. Read some of Tony Hirst's online published papers, and tell me what is wrong with them, or the science behind them.

Reread my posts concerning human-caused global warming. My position has always been that there are contradictory papers, reports, studies, experiments, and models coming from both sides of this issue. You only believe one side, while I try and remind you of the other.

The only reasonable conclusion is: "we don't know, we need more info".

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You guys remind me of the creationists arguing against evolution.

You're the only one faithfully and zealously defending a position that has yet to be reasonably proven.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


This is pretty stupid.

Of course the figure of 5.2% is political, arbitrary and not based on science. Kyoto is not about making a scientific change, it is about trying to get the nations of the world to agree to a process for change.

Wouldn't be a good idea to at the very least get the climatologist's to support the process though??

You're correct though...

Something is stupid. Like putting forth a proposed remedy that the relevant scientists don't even support.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Reread my posts concerning human-caused global warming. My position has always been that there are contradictory papers, reports, studies, experiments, and models coming from both sides of this issue. You only believe one side, while I try and remind you of the other.

The only reasonable conclusion is: "we don't know, we need more info".



You're the only one faithfully and zealously defending a position that has yet to be reasonably proven.

The recent severe flooding and heat wave in Europe, with record temperatures, both fit in with the weather 'events' predicted by GW scientists.

I asked my friend what he thought of the article, and he agreed that this does not constitute proof, as one year is too short a period to draw a conclusion from, but did say the scientist is entitled to point out that what is happening is consistent with predictions.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Also, consideration must also be given not to just what is good for humans, but for other species as well.


"Mr. UN Secretary, I'd like to address the honorable seagull from New Guinea, and then yield the balance of my time to the honorable dolphin from Australia..." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Wouldn't be a good idea to at the very least get the climatologist's to support the process though??

You're correct though...

Something is stupid. Like putting forth a proposed remedy that the relevant scientists don't even support.

The whole is reason it was proposed is that there are relevant scientists who do support it. The reduction in CFCs is another example. A step by step process was taken to reduce and remove their prescence. The ozone hole is now not accelerating in growth already, due to these reductions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak



"Mr. UN Secretary, I'd like to address the honorable seagull from New Guinea, and then yield the balance of my time to the honorable dolphin from Australia..." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hmmm, a speciesist.

The notion that the earth exists purely for us to enjoy as we see fit went out with the old testament, didn't it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The recent severe flooding and heat wave in Europe, with record temperatures, both fit in with the weather 'events' predicted by GW scientists.

I asked my friend what he thought of the article, and he agreed that this does not constitute proof, as one year is too short a period to draw a conclusion from, but did say the scientist is entitled to point out that what is happening is consistent with predictions.

Fair enough.

Does he also concede that there are innumerable instances that have occured over the last year that contradict many of those same predictions?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hmmm, a speciesist.

No, a light-hearted response to your implied demonization of your opponents.

HCGW skeptics care about the welfare of non-human species just as much as the HCGW true believers.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
The recent severe flooding and heat wave in Europe, with record temperatures, both fit in with the weather 'events' predicted by GW scientists.

IIRC recent flooding in Europe is attributable to human settlement on flood plains and levee construction rather than global warming.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Finally!...

As a human-caused global warming skeptic, I bid you welcome.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

It's not hard to be cynical when presented with scientific arguments by a group endorsing a specific political or economic (or religious) view either.

Like Galileo vs. The Pope. I'd expect the church to fight the idea of a heliocentric universe because anything else would've meant their views were wrong. Not because the church was any sort of authority on astronomy.

Except there are serious consequences for being wrong about this. I still say we should proceed assuming the worst. Even if 75% of the doomsday scenarios are off base, which 25% would you have be accurate?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Fair enough.

Does he also concede that there are innumerable instances that have occured over the last year that contradict many of those same predictions?

What he says is that the extremes, according to modelling, will be more extreme. This does not preclude the average still being only slightly different, that is, 0.5C over a period of 25 years.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


IIRC recent flooding in Europe is attributable to human settlement on flood plains and levee construction rather than global warming.

That has been an ongoing process for hundreds of years. The flooding has still been worse than usual. Expect more floods with the glaciers retreating.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
I still say we should proceed assuming the worst. Even if 75% of the doomsday scenarios are off base, which 25% would you have be accurate?

Maybe I should start praying, saying "god bless you" when someone sneezes, and attending Sunday mass. One never knows, right? :rolleyes:

There have many ecological disasters and blunders around the world that have arisen out of action being taken, however well intentioned, before a scientific consensus was reached or possible repercussions were exhaustively examined.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The recent severe flooding and heat wave in Europe, with record temperatures, both fit in with the weather 'events' predicted by GW scientists.

And as I pointed out earlier, it would fit in equally as well with droughts and cold waves. The GW people got tired of having their predictions not coming out, so now they're predicting everything.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"Mr. UN Secretary, I'd like to address the honorable seagull from New Guinea, and then yield the balance of my time to the honorable dolphin from Australia..." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Animal rights? Okay: If the animals publish a newspaper, I won't ban it. Animals should be allowed to worship in whatever church they want. You have the right to speak—WOOF! That's a free doggie!" —Tim Slagle

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The whole is reason it was proposed is that there are relevant scientists who do support it. The reduction in CFCs is another example. A step by step process was taken to reduce and remove their prescence. The ozone hole is now not accelerating in growth already, due to these reductions.

Ya gotta love pseudoscience. All they have to do is come up with an explanation for every eventuality:

It gets smaller: See? We fixed the problem!

It stays the same size: Well, at least we stopped it from getting any worse!

It continues to grow, but by not as much: See the effect it's having? We need more!

It continues to grow at at least the previous rate: We're not doing enough! We need to do more!

Is there any eventuality that would falsify this crap? No...and that's why it's woo-wooism and not science.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What he says is that the extremes, according to modelling, will be more extreme. This does not preclude the average still being only slightly different, that is, 0.5C over a period of 25 years.

Hrmph...I actually heard a GW guy once use the phrase, "extremely moderate temperatures"...

Here's the bottom line: How is any of what the planet is experiencing in any way out of line with previous trends going back thousands of years?

[The Don]

Originally posted by shanek

Here's the bottom line: How is any of what the planet is experiencing in any way out of line with previous trends going back thousands of years?

Oh, if you will bring science into it....

Short answer - "Because we've decided to worry about it"

In the not too distant future the same hoopla will be raised about some other thing like the preservation of rare isotopes. Are you aware that over 50% of iodine 131 has decayed IN ONLY 8 DAYS !!!!!

[Kodiak]

Predictions... :rolleyes:


"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
The flooding has still been worse than usual.

So what? The winter of 2000-2001 was "worse" than usual in this part of the world. Is this indicative of a cooling trend?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Predictions... :rolleyes:


"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Thanks for those quotes.

It seems the hard-green environmental movement works on "the sky is falling" mentatlity. They have to whip everyone into thinking we are in a constant crisis in order to galvanize people. When their doom and gloom predictions go nowhere, they never actually say, "oops, we might have been wrong about that." They simply go on to the next "sky is falling" scenario. If they were to apologize people would be less likely to believe their next scenario.

Personal anecdote:

The northeastern US had a drought for a few years. Of course on National Public Radio, scientists and activists were on saying this proved global warming and that we may be headed for a serious catastrophe from lack of water, even deaths. Well this year has been one of the wettest on records and we have made up the deficit. I am still waiting for the scientists and activists to say, "oops."

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Maybe I should start praying, saying "god bless you" when someone sneezes, and attending Sunday mass. One never knows, right? :rolleyes:



If you like, sure. Maybe a Jesus bobblehead on the dashboard for luck too, if that's your thing. If patronizing talk and rolling eyes don't do it for you.

But I'm talking about wearing a seatbelt, not about superstitions. Most likely I won't need it the next time I get in my car. But I'll be glad I'm wearing it if I get rearended. Just in case. I might be saving my life, or I might just be saving myself a few stitches in the head. I'm not too keen on losing the first or gaining the second, so I'll wear a seatbelt anyway.

The only difference between us is you're willing to wait until the problems manifest themselves, and I'm not. Like I said, the worst that can happen is that the air would be a lighter shade of brown.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
So what? The winter of 2000-2001 was "worse" than usual in this part of the world. Is this indicative of a cooling trend?

No, it's indicative of...Global Warming! EVERYTHING's indicative of Global Warming! Any weather pattern at all can be made to fit the "model"! It can't lose!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


And as I pointed out earlier, it would fit in equally as well with droughts and cold waves. The GW people got tired of having their predictions not coming out, so now they're predicting everything.

I don't get it. You can read, online, a wide selection of scientific papers published by a climate scientist. They appear, to me, to be serious, scientific work, no less so than work done by scientists in other fields of work.

Yet this science is just trashed using schoolboy ad-homs. I can't understand advanced quantum mechanics. QM models are being constantly revised and updated. The graviton is still a debateable particle. But I don't see you poking fun at QM scientists like a ten year old. Both areas of science use exactly the same scientific procedures and processes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yet this science is just trashed using schoolboy ad-homs.

I have asked you direct questions about GW, which you have ignored. You have no basis to get high and mighty over me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


I have asked you direct questions about GW, which you have ignored. You have no basis to get high and mighty over me.

Because I am no more an expert than you are. Every time I raise one of the points mentioned on these boards with my friend, he says that of course they know that, which is what you would expect, but there is a counter argument which is scientifically based. He doesn't want to become involved in a debate here precisely because he knows what debate on internet forums invovles, mudslinging between people who's minds are already made up.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Thanks for those quotes.

It seems the hard-green environmental movement works on "the sky is falling" mentatlity. They have to whip everyone into thinking we are in a constant crisis in order to galvanize people. When their doom and gloom predictions go nowhere, they never actually say, "oops, we might have been wrong about that." They simply go on to the next "sky is falling" scenario. If they were to apologize people would be less likely to believe their next scenario.

Personal anecdote:

The northeastern US had a drought for a few years. Of course on National Public Radio, scientists and activists were on saying this proved global warming and that we may be headed for a serious catastrophe from lack of water, even deaths. Well this year has been one of the wettest on records and we have made up the deficit. I am still waiting for the scientists and activists to say, "oops."

I think you need to differentiate between scientists and activists. They are not the same thing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Because I am no more an expert than you are. Every time I raise one of the points mentioned on these boards with my friend, he says that of course they know that, which is what you would expect, but there is a counter argument which is scientifically based.

And yet, you couldn't possibly do anything as rational and fruitful as actually posting these counter arguments, could you?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


And yet, you couldn't possibly do anything as rational and fruitful as actually posting these counter arguments, could you?

They have all been included in their models and reasoning. If you look up the most relevant report, for example, on temperature measurements from satellites.



Final Report 1994-1997 2
2. Present climate variations and interactions Globally, surface temperature measured in standard eteorological screens at 1.5 m above the ground has increased by 0.3 to 0.6°C since the late 19th century. In Australia, the average temperature has increased by 0.76°C from 1910 to 1990. This estimate accounts types of instruments and their changes and urban heat island effects, mainly by excluding data from stations affected by these problems. There are however major differences between measured temperatures near the surface and those obtained from satellites which measure temperature over a considerable depth of the lower atmosphere. These differences are not surprising as the measurements are of different quantities. Moreover, the satellite-measured 19-year temperature record is too short to determine long term trends (see the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research World Wide Web site at: http://www.dar.csiro.au/Christy.htm.

[Quasi]

Unique-

QM is debatable, but the agreement on QM will not lead to a massive fascist ecological government such as the international organizations recommended to curb global warming. Look at what they are saying- 1) All local economies, people live in concentrated shared living buildings. No cars, no planes, no trucks- use organic farming to produce all the food the community needs. I don't have to tell you just how incredibly stupid this is. 2) Start by reducing emissions to 1990 levels (Kyoto treaty,) or 2000 levels (newer treaty.) Create a pollution swapping system where 3rd world countries can sell their pollution to the dev. world. Here is another naive suggestion- since virtually all 3rd world leaders are corrupt and are not held accountable to the public, this is like ordering all US citizens to hand over their wallets to the nearest crook. Already the UK and other nations are renegging on their foolish Kyoto treaty agreements because a) It is rediculously expensive b) It deystroys every economy it touches.
If you read the environmental skeptic by Bjorn Lomborg, it goes much deeper. Further, a May publication at Harvard suggests the sun cycle plays a much greater role on GW than previously thought- so all models made prior to this are in serious doubt. All things considered- why gamble everything on an unknown?
Or should we spend the limited money we have on things we know will help GW?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Quasi
Unique-

QM is debatable, but the agreement on QM will not lead to a massive fascist ecological government such as the international organizations recommended to curb global warming. Look at what they are saying- 1) All local economies, people live in concentrated shared living buildings. No cars, no planes, no trucks- use organic farming to produce all the food the community needs. I don't have to tell you just how incredibly stupid this is.



I don't think you will find the scientists saying this. Same radical greenies may be, but my friend, for example, is no radical greenie.


2) Start by reducing emissions to 1990 levels (Kyoto treaty,) or 2000 levels (newer treaty.) Create a pollution swapping system where 3rd world countries can sell their pollution to the dev. world. Here is another naive suggestion- since virtually all 3rd world leaders are corrupt and are not held accountable to the public, this is like ordering all US citizens to hand over their wallets to the nearest crook. Already the UK and other nations are renegging on their foolish Kyoto treaty agreements because a) It is rediculously expensive b) It deystroys every economy it touches.



If GW is correct, and many scientists believe it is, the disruption caused by GW will cause massive economic disruption too. Dubya is a crook too.



If you read the environmental skeptic by Bjorn Lomborg, it goes much deeper. Further, a May publication at Harvard suggests the sun cycle plays a much greater role on GW than previously thought- so all models made prior to this are in serious doubt. All things considered- why gamble everything on an unknown?
Or should we spend the limited money we have on things we know will help GW?

I am very skeptical of Mr Lomborg. He should go over a few of his own facts and statistics. For example, he is quite happy to put Australia down as a country with plenty of fresh water. Using simple statistics, this is true. In practice, nothing could be further from the truth.

GW scientists are well aware that the sun cycle plays a role in warming/cooling, which is why they are interested in the research into this as well. Don't think they just ignore these areas of knowledge, they don't.

As for limited money being available, I like that statistic that says that we spend as much on chewing gum each year as we spend on the space program. (Or something in that order). Money shouldn't be thrown away, but when something comes up, like Adolf Hitler and WWII, all of a sudden money is not so important any more.

As for gambling on an unknown, as a race, we do that all the time.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Having been sorta taken to task for not addressing Kodiak's data, I submit this (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/agu-lcs070703.php).

And when it comes to academic credibility, I hold American Geophysical Union publications in higher regard than a Microsoft Word line graph accredited to some other guy with his own bone to pick. I refer to this:


http://www.envirotruth.org/surf-msu.gif

I'd pick the American Astrophysical Union archives over an amateur comet hunter's website for doing research too. Crazy, huh?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

I'm not saying "Global Warming is real, ha ha" so much as pointing out that these kinds of sources are where we should get our opinions on these matters from.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They have all been included in their models and reasoning. If you look up the most relevant report, for example, on temperature measurements from satellites.

That doesn't have anything to say about the current trend matching the trend leading up to the Medieval Warm Period, and what we might expect after coming out of the Little Ice Age. In fact, it just confirms the figures are right in line with that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
I'd pick the American Astrophysical Union archives over an amateur comet hunter's website for doing research too. Crazy, huh?

Why all the argument by authority? Why not just study the data yourself and reach your own conclusion?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Why all the argument by authority? Why not just study the data yourself and reach your own conclusion?

Why don't you tell me when you prove the graviton exists?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


That doesn't have anything to say about the current trend matching the trend leading up to the Medieval Warm Period, and what we might expect after coming out of the Little Ice Age. In fact, it just confirms the figures are right in line with that.

The slow trend in warming has shown a sudden, recent accelleration. That is what the concern is about. That a rapid, upward surge will be difficult to deal with, rapid change=disorder and chaos.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The slow trend in warming has shown a sudden, recent accelleration. That is what the concern is about. That a rapid, upward surge will be difficult to deal with, rapid change=disorder and chaos.

How do you define rapid?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why don't you tell me when you prove the graviton exists?

No one here is making scientific claims involving the graviton. You are making scientific claims involving Global Warming. It's up to you to back them up, and to respond to the problems that we point out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The slow trend in warming has shown a sudden, recent accelleration.

As it did going into the MWP.

That a rapid, upward surge will be difficult to deal with, rapid change=disorder and chaos.

You haven't shown one piece of evidence that the change is any more rapid than that going into the MWP. And the ultimate temperature rise being claimed by you is right along in line with what was experienced during the MWP.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


No one here is making scientific claims involving the graviton. You are making scientific claims involving Global Warming. It's up to you to back them up, and to respond to the problems that we point out.

The science behind GW and the graviton is both as complex and obscure to the layman. I can no more offer an informed critique of the models being used for GW than I can on whether or not the graviton exists.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The science behind GW and the graviton is both as complex and obscure to the layman. I can no more offer an informed critique of the models being used for GW than I can on whether or not the graviton exists.

That's just a bunch of crap! A not-so-veiled appeal to authority! NO ONE, not even the smartest scientists in the world, know whether or not the graviton exists. And NO ONE, not even the smartest scientists in the world, claim to have enough information to properly debate its existance beyond purely theoretical constructs.

And most importantly, no one is trying to take our money, and tell us how we can and can't live our lives, based upon whether or not the graviton exists.

YOU have claimed that GW is human-caused. You have had data pointed out to that calls this claim into doubt. YOU claim that there are scientific answers to these claims that you have been given, but for some bizarre reason refuse to post here. And you still expect us to believe that what you claim is true based on something no more reliable than who has the biggest d!&<?

I have to quote Galileo again: "The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


That's just a bunch of crap! A not-so-veiled appeal to authority! NO ONE, not even the smartest scientists in the world, know whether or not the graviton exists. And NO ONE, not even the smartest scientists in the world, claim to have enough information to properly debate its existance beyond purely theoretical constructs.

And most importantly, no one is trying to take our money, and tell us how we can and can't live our lives, based upon whether or not the graviton exists.

YOU have claimed that GW is human-caused. You have had data pointed out to that calls this claim into doubt. YOU claim that there are scientific answers to these claims that you have been given, but for some bizarre reason refuse to post here. And you still expect us to believe that what you claim is true based on something no more reliable than who has the biggest d!&<?

I have to quote Galileo again: "The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

Galileo lived in different times. The world has changed a lot since then. A 'renaissance man' could reasonably hope to master all the fields of science back then. There is no hope of that now.

Look at the online papers for Tony Hirst, and tell me the flaw in his reasoning on their mark3 weather modelling program. It means as much to me as does advanced quantum mechanics.

Now your claim



And most importantly, no one is trying to take our money, and tell us how we can and can't live our lives, based upon whether or not the graviton exists.



This is the whole crux of the matter. People are doing just this with patents for the human genome. Research into life saving technologies and the use of them is being hampered by patent claims for something that is intrinsically ours. People are always telling us how we can and can't live our lives.

I can't own a nice red Ferrari, because I don't have enough money! How dare they! I can't race off with Elle McPherson for the night because she doesn't want to, what is up with her? I can't get a $50,000 pay rise, what is up with this world!

The scientists aren't telling us what to do, they are just telling us what they believe is happening. Like the scientists working on the graviton. What we do about what they are telling us is up to us, as a society.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Galileo lived in different times. The world has changed a lot since then. A 'renaissance man' could reasonably hope to master all the fields of science back then. There is no hope of that now.

Look at the online papers for Tony Hirst, and tell me the flaw in his reasoning on their mark3 weather modelling program. It means as much to me as does advanced quantum mechanics.

Now your claim



This is the whole crux of the matter. People are doing just this with patents for the human genome. Research into life saving technologies and the use of them is being hampered by patent claims for something that is intrinsically ours. People are always telling us how we can and can't live our lives.

I can't own a nice red Ferrari, because I don't have enough money! How dare they! I can't race off with Elle McPherson for the night because she doesn't want to, what is up with her? I can't get a $50,000 pay rise, what is up with this world!

The scientists aren't telling us what to do, they are just telling us what they believe is happening. Like the scientists working on the graviton. What we do about what they are telling us is up to us, as a society.

I think a few posts back you claimed that the current trend of "extreme" temperature in Europe right now was predicted based on the model your scientist friend created. Tell me, is there an upcoming "extreme" trend somewhere in the world that you can inform us all about?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I think a few posts back you claimed that the current trend of "extreme" temperature in Europe right now was predicted based on the model your scientist friend created. Tell me, is there an upcoming "extreme" trend somewhere in the world that you can inform us all about?


Sorry for not being clear. My friends model was not the one referred to in the article, it is just one of many. As I noted in the first post, and the scientist noted in the article, and my friend also noted when I asked him, the current events in Europe do not constitute a 'proof'. The time period is too short. What they do is indicate the correctness of the models, in that they are extreme weather events that conform to predictions.

Should we all wait till the models are proven correct before we do anything about GW at all?

As for particular events, I do not know if these are predicted, just as you cannot predict the weather for any one area too far into the future. The models merely predict what may happen for the areas generally, and that extreme weather events will become more common.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



Sorry for not being clear. My friends model was not the one referred to in the article, it is just one of many. As I noted in the first post, and the scientist noted in the article, and my friend also noted when I asked him, the current events in Europe do not constitute a 'proof'. The time period is too short. What they do is indicate the correctness of the models, in that they are extreme weather events that conform to predictions.
There were always extreme "weather events" somewhere in the world if by extreme you mean hotter or colder than it usually is. France record temperatures are still yet to be broken. So it's obviously not that extreme.

Should we all wait till the models are proven correct before we do anything about GW at all?
Heck yeah! I want proof before we start programs that inflict enormous damage to the economy and slow down progress across the globe. If we are going to put in all this effort for GW then why not Global Cooling, you know, just in case.

As for particular events, I do not know if these are predicted, just as you cannot predict the weather for any one area too far into the future. The models merely predict what may happen for the areas generally, and that extreme weather events will become more common.
Well generally tell me what will happen in my, yours or any other area.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by shanek


Why all the argument by authority? Why not just study the data yourself and reach your own conclusion?

What, all the data? Wow.

I have formed my own opinion. But that's not what it's about.

It's about me having the same cynicism towards data mined by envirotruth that you'd have towards Greenpeace or ELF. There are True Believers on both sides. There's a vast amount of data out there, and I don't trust organizations that have a vested economic, political or philosophical interest in their point of view being right. Most of the evidence I've seen for global warming being either a load of hooey or not a problem comes from or is paid for by groups who have a lot to lose by being wrong, and scientific objectivity is lost. Surely you can see what EnviroTruth is trying to say in their debunking of the last few myths regarding Kyoto. Do you think they're above selective quoting, using out-of-date data, sneaking in a few comparisons of apples and oranges? I don't.

Maybe I'm too skeptical, but I've seen it happen too many times in threads just like this to think this particular piece of work is above such reproach. "No no, they're all fakes, yeah, but I can really bend spoons with a thought!" Sure.


Going through each issue on that site point by point with real academic rigor is a whole lot of effort, and in the end it'd probably be nothing you haven't read before. So I offered (eventually) what I consider a better, more current source as reason for my skepticism of Kodiak's reference instead.

It's hard to prove John Edward fans count the hits and ignore the misses when you don't have a record of the misses handy. But you know this happens, right? That's my attitude towards Envirotruth. It's not above them to ignore what doesn't support their argument. What's stopping them?

I do try to read the papers coming out of places like the AGU now and then, although to be honest I'm more into politics right now. The general view of the AGU and the IPCC and the common sense that adding energy to a system warms it up leads me to believe that serious effort into all sorts of alternative energy systems and decent car engines isn't a bad idea. Serious like the Apollo program was serious. Beats spending money on developing this month's sexy new razor or still another aircraft carrier, doesn't it?

That doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means I think we should do better rather than do worse. Sooner or later we will make a difference we'll regret, even if we haven't done so yet.

That's my opinion.


I think I'll call him "Kodiak" :D


http://www.whimsicality.com/images/cricket.jpg

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron

There were always extreme "weather events" somewhere in the world if by extreme you mean hotter or colder than it usually is. France record temperatures are still yet to be broken. So it's obviously not that extreme.

Heck yeah! I want proof before we start programs that inflict enormous damage to the economy and slow down progress across the globe. If we are going to put in all this effort for GW then why not Global Cooling, you know, just in case.

Well generally tell me what will happen in my, yours or any other area.

The average temperature for Paris is 23C in August, it has been around 40C for two weeks. Morgues are full. This is an example of an extreme weather event. The prediction is that extremes will be more extreme.

Don't forget, IIRC, the high and low pressure systems are what drives the weather. The lows will get lower, and the highs higher, as there is more energy in the atmosphere, (which is basically what we are talking about, I think). The greater differences between high and low create more extremes of weather. The average temperature may rise slightly, the storms will be stormier. Since storms often induce lower temperatures, extreme cold spells are not precluded from an overall global warming.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Galileo lived in different times. The world has changed a lot since then.

What a pathetic excuse. What he said is just as true today as it was then.

I can't own a nice red Ferrari, because I don't have enough money! How dare they! I can't race off with Elle McPherson for the night because she doesn't want to, what is up with her? I can't get a $50,000 pay rise, what is up with this world!

Oh, come on—that's hardly the same thing! If the GW people have their way, everything will become more expensive, we won't have nearly as much power as we do, productivity will plummet, and the economy will suffer greatly. That's hardly an effective remedy for something that (despite your assertions to the contrary) the scientists can't even agree is happening!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
It's about me having the same cynicism towards data mined by envirotruth that you'd have towards Greenpeace or ELF. There are True Believers on both sides.

But as I pointed out to A_U_P, the EnviroTruth people aren't the ones watning to use MY money and interfere with MY life to fix a problem they can't even prove exists!

I don't have anything really to fear from them. So no, I don't hold them up to the same standards. At the same time, they are pointing out a lot of things—using science just as good as if not better than the science on the GW side—that contradict the claim that humans are causing GW through the burning of fossil fuels, and the GW people need to respond to that. They aren't.

(Well, according to A_U_P they are, he just can't be bothered to post it here...yeah, right.)

That's my attitude towards Envirotruth. It's not above them to ignore what doesn't support their argument. What's stopping them?

But the same is true on the GW side. That's why we have to look at the data from both sides to form our conclusion.

But doesn't the GW side have an obligation to at least respond to these observations?

I do try to read the papers coming out of places like the AGU now and then, although to be honest I'm more into politics right now.

Well, this issue is more political than scientific.

The general view of the AGU and the IPCC and the common sense that adding energy to a system warms it up leads me to believe that serious effort into all sorts of alternative energy systems and decent car engines isn't a bad idea.

Who says that isn't being done? Honda and Toyota have had hybrid electric cars (which get much higher gas mileage with no supplemental energy required) for years, and GM and Ford and other countries have recently introduced theirs, too—even for SUVs, which aren't subject to the fuel effeciency regulations passed in the '70s. What does that tell you?

And what other alternatives are there? Electric? You have to generate the electricity somewhere. Electric cars have a tailpipe, they're just at the local power plant. Hydrogen? You have to use electricity to separate hydrogen from the oxygen in water in the first place, so again, they have a tailpipe; it's just elsewhere.

The problem is, for the time being, fossil fuels are just too cheap and efficient to be easily replaced.

And any method—ANY METHOD—of generating power is going to have problems if you do too much of it. Too much solar power will affect the albedo. Too much wind power will affect weather patterns. The most efficient power with the cleanest output today is nuclear power, but you'll notice the environmentalists are hardly jumping over all that, even though right now replacing plants that burn fossil fuel with nuclear plants will be a much more effective way of reducing emissions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


But as I pointed out to A_U_P, the EnviroTruth people aren't the ones watning to use MY money and interfere with MY life to fix a problem they can't even prove exists!

I don't have anything really to fear from them. So no, I don't hold them up to the same standards. At the same time, they are pointing out a lot of things—using science just as good as if not better than the science on the GW side—that contradict the claim that humans are causing GW through the burning of fossil fuels, and the GW people need to respond to that. They aren't.

(Well, according to A_U_P they are, he just can't be bothered to post it here...yeah, right.)


RTFP, Shane. He doesn't want to get involved in something resembling a WWE mud wrestling match. He is too nice a guy. He also doesn't like people questioning his scientific dedication. When I raise a point that I think is new, he gets all excited and says that they are investigating such a point and it is all insteresting and wonderful, just like I would expect a scientist to react to the possibility of proving the graviton exists. If this guy thought that we weren't contributing to GW, he would be on to it in a flash, because he would then be able to show how he was smarter than the other guys who didn't realise it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
RTFP, Shane. He doesn't want to get involved in something resembling a WWE mud wrestling match.

Uh-huh. How convenient for both him and you. He also apparently doesn't want to get into a scientific discussion on a board full of skeptics.

He also doesn't like people questioning his scientific dedication.

Oh, well, doo-pee-doo-doo! What kind of scientist is it that can't stand questioning?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Uh-huh. How convenient for both him and you. He also apparently doesn't want to get into a scientific discussion on a board full of skeptics.



skeptics. wankers may be more accurate. when are you going to prove or disprove the existence of the gravition. Someone of you intellectual abilities should be able to knock that problem off in time to tell us why we should all be nuclear armed before lunch.





Oh, well, doo-pee-doo-doo! What kind of scientist is it that can't stand questioning?

He can, and he constantly is, just not by a bunch of mud splattering loonies. All those publications of his are peer reviewed.

I went to the open day at the DAR, and was amazed to hear a climate scientist explaining to a gentleman of about 60 what the greenhouse effect was and why it was important. This lovely old codger then laughed and said he'd be dead and gone before any of the problems affected him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
skeptics. wankers may be more accurate.

Your inability to properly refute our postition and desperation to resort to name-calling has been noted.

when are you going to prove or disprove the existence of the gravition.

As soon as I make the claim that it does or doesn't exist.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


What a pathetic excuse. What he said is just as true today as it was then.



no, it's not. Galilieo was a very clever man, much smarter than I will ever be, but what he said applied to the world he lived in, not our world.



Oh, come on—that's hardly the same thing! If the GW people have their way, everything will become more expensive, we won't have nearly as much power as we do, productivity will plummet, and the economy will suffer greatly. That's hardly an effective remedy for something that (despite your assertions to the contrary) the scientists can't even agree is happening!

Like I said, he doesn't actually say anything should happen, he's just investigating what the science says will happen if nothing changes.

As to scientists not agreeing, I can get you a whole boatload of scientists that don't believe in evolution. Most do think there is something to it, and current weather events seem to indicate they are right.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Your inability to properly refute our postition and desperation to resort to name-calling has been noted.



As soon as I make the claim that it does or doesn't exist.

Well hello Mr Kettle. Your desperation in other posts has already been noted.

The reason you don't engage in the graviton debate is because it doesn't involve money.

I am including myself amongst the wankers. I would like to be able to give a learned dissetation on gravitons, GW, FED interest rate policy, the holding the ball rule, refugee/illegal alien immigration policy, if Shakespeare was really Francis Bacon and the definitive way to show James Edwards up as a fraud and get his show thrown off the air.

Unfortunately, I can do none of the above, but I do worry that the world I leave my children will not be as good as I should leave it, and reputeable scientists are telling me I should be concerned about the possible consequnces of GW.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
no, it's not. Galilieo was a very clever man, much smarter than I will ever be, but what he said applied to the world he lived in, not our world.

What he said applies to the way science works.

I'd love to hear you try and spew this crap out to all of those amateur astronomers out there, many of whom have discovered comets and made other discoveries. Many of whom are self taught, with a telescope and some books from the library. Go and tell them that their opinion doesn't count, that they're not doing anything of consequence, that they have to bow down to what the authorities say.

You have no idea what science is all about. Science is about observation and studying the data. It is NOT about authority!

Like I said, he doesn't actually say anything should happen, he's just investigating what the science says will happen if nothing changes.

Which has been brought into question by other data we have found, and which you refuse to give a response for.

As to scientists not agreeing, I can get you a whole boatload of scientists that don't believe in evolution.

Really? Do you mean scientists working in the relevant fields such as biology or paleontology, or do you mean orthodontists and meteorologists?

This oughta be good...

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The reason you don't engage in the graviton debate is because it doesn't involve money.

No, the reason I don't engage in the graviton debate is because no one is claiming to know squat all about gravitons. But have someone go into the government and say how we all have to be taxed and restricted from driving or having full power output or other intense regulations because of gravitons and you'll see that change very quickly.

I would like to be able to give a learned dissetation on gravitons, GW, FED interest rate policy, the holding the ball rule, refugee/illegal alien immigration policy, if Shakespeare was really Francis Bacon and the definitive way to show James Edwards up as a fraud and get his show thrown off the air.

We aren't talking about "learned dissertations." We're talking about asking questions and having them answered.

Unfortunately, I can do none of the above, but I do worry that the world I leave my children will not be as good as I should leave it, and reputeable scientists are telling me I should be concerned about the possible consequnces of GW.

And other scientists, just as reputable, are saying that there are indications that the current warming trend is a natural phenomenon and nothing to be concerned about.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




Unfortunately, I can do none of the above, but I do worry that the world I leave my children will not be as good as I should leave it, and reputeable scientists are telling me I should be concerned about the possible consequnces of GW.



Being so worried, for your part, you can stop using electricity, and refuse to use any product that is made from a process that involves any chance of ' green house emmisions '.. Also you should avoid any food products, whose use otherwise threatens any ecco system on the planet.

Correct me if I'm wrong in suspecting you are not that worried..

Or do the rest of us have to go first...?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

I'd love to hear you try and spew this crap out to all of those amateur astronomers out there, many of whom have discovered comets and made other discoveries. Many of whom are self taught, with a telescope and some books from the library. Go and tell them that their opinion doesn't count, that they're not doing anything of consequence, that they have to bow down to what the authorities say.

I'm an amateur astronomer, and we do. Of course we do. We can submit a discovered comet to the IAU, and they check it out. They make sure that it is indeed a comet, and that it hasn't been previously discovered, and then the discoverer is given the opportunity to name it, and then the amateur gets credit for the discovery.

If the IAU says "Sorry, that's just (3834)ZappaFrank (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/special/rocknroll/0003834.html)," what am I going to do about it? Stomp my foot? Call them liars?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Well, this issue is more political than scientific.

This is a big obstacle to this discussion, I think. But since accusations of What We Really Want are coming up, I feel I should offer my view.

Utility rates were deregulated in Alberta recently, and electricity rates skyrocketed. Tripled in some cases. For no reason I can fathom other than the utility companies wanted more money. Good old Premier Ralph Klein agreed to this, naturally. It sucks, but the world did not end. Cushy lifestyles remain intact.

If power rates are to skyrocket, I'd rather they do so because the people making the money the Old Way are committing to figuring out how to do things the New Way. As it is, we're just lining pockets. I'd rather pay for something worthwhile.

Hybrid engines? Ford had a perfectly serviceable Taurus Stationwagon prototype hybrid a decade ago. The U of A engineers designed and built it as part of a big contest sponsored by Ford, and it was the winning entry. It purred like a kitten and handled better than the stock version in this Alberta driver's opinion. And what do we get from Ford years later? The Excursion. I'm glad to see a few hybrids on the market here and there, but I really question Detroit's commitment to this venture.

Denizens of Martha's Vineyard (Marthans?) crying about losing their view to teeny weeny eggbeaters on the horizon? Paint them blue-grey and they'll disappear from view in a week. It's not like they want to turn the place into a toxic waste dump or a Disneyland. And close up the eggbeaters would probably make for good photographs at dawn. They'd become a tourist attraction before they drove tourists away, I think.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
I'm an amateur astronomer, and we do. Of course we do. We can submit a discovered comet to the IAU, and they check it out. They make sure that it is indeed a comet, and that it hasn't been previously discovered, and then the discoverer is given the opportunity to name it, and then the amateur gets credit for the discovery.

If the IAU says "Sorry, that's just (3834)ZappaFrank (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/special/rocknroll/0003834.html)," what am I going to do about it? Stomp my foot? Call them liars?

That's hardly the same thing a_u_p is talking about. According to his logic, you shouldn't be allowed to look for comets AT ALL!

Of course new discoveries need to be confirmed. And for the sake of standards and consistency, there does need to be some sort of body who covers things like the names of comets. But look at what a_u_p was actually saying—he's saying we have no business looking at the data and asking questions. Is that not exactly what you do every time you look up at the sky?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
Utility rates were deregulated in Alberta recently, and electricity rates skyrocketed. Tripled in some cases. For no reason I can fathom other than the utility companies wanted more money. Good old Premier Ralph Klein agreed to this, naturally. It sucks, but the world did not end. Cushy lifestyles remain intact.

Without knowing anything about the Canadian situation, I'll merely state that in the US, whenever this has happened, when you look into it you find that "deregulation" is nothing of the kind. In the California system, there were so many regulations on how many new power plants could be built, how power could be imported from other states, and how much the providers could charge the consumers. This led to an imbalance—the power shortage, which wouldn't have happened if the power companies had been allowed to build new plants or import power from out of state, caused the market equilibrium price to rise, but the providers were forbidden from passing this situation on to the consumers.

Whenever a politician tells you something is "deregulated," take a look and see how many regulations really are there. Then ask yourself, how can it be deregulated when it's regulated?

I'm glad to see a few hybrids on the market here and there, but I really question Detroit's commitment to this venture.

But that's just the thing—since we've got other companies like Honda and Toyota, we're not limited to what Detroit is committed to. And once the competition spurs the demand, like is happening now, Detroit will and is following suit.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The average temperature for Paris is 23C in August, it has been around 40C for two weeks. Morgues are full. This is an example of an extreme weather event. The prediction is that extremes will be more extreme.

Don't forget, IIRC, the high and low pressure systems are what drives the weather. The lows will get lower, and the highs higher, as there is more energy in the atmosphere, (which is basically what we are talking about, I think). The greater differences between high and low create more extremes of weather. The average temperature may rise slightly, the storms will be stormier. Since storms often induce lower temperatures, extreme cold spells are not precluded from an overall global warming.

Don't give me that "morgues are full" emotional stuff please. The reason those people are dead is less to do with heat and more to do with the fact that people are too dumb to know what to do in the heat.

So what you are saying is that Europe will have the coldest winter ever and then even warmer summer next year?

[Lyle Beaudoin]

But that's just the thing—since we've got other companies like Honda and Toyota, we're not limited to what Detroit is committed to.

Detroit has the resources to make a difference, we don't. We buy what they put on the lots. When they make efficient cars, we'll drive efficient cars.

And once the competition spurs the demand, like is happening now, Detroit will and is following suit.

Sounds nice. And it might work for a while, until the cars go out of style.

[BobK]

AUP,

Report from the website of the company your friend works for.

Warning! It's a PDF document.

1997-98 annual report (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/hennessy_1997a.pdf)

Copied from near the beginning of the document.
Fine Resolution Climate Change Scenarios For New South Wales

Annual Report 1997-98

Minor snip...

Important Disclaimer

This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling.
Models involve simplifications of the real physical processes that are not fully
understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the NSW
EPA for the accuracy of forcasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any
person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this
report.


Maybe you would be kind enough to gather the answers to a few questions for me?

I find it odd that they link to a five year old annual report, are there more current ones available? If so, I would be interested in reading them.

I have found that the general case with disclaimers is that they are not usually placed so prominently, or preceeded by the word important. Should I assume that their confidence in the report is very low?

Since five years have passed, what is their current assessment of the accuracy of the 1997-98 report?

Are they still using the same assumptions in their current model as they used in the 1997-98 model.

If not, have they just refined their assumptions for more accuracy, or have they discarded some and added others?

Has the current model proven itself to be more accurate than older models?

If the current model is more accurate, has the increase in accuracy resulted in a prediction of more warming or less warming?

I'm not looking for a dissertation on global warming, but trying to understand the quality of the 'state of the art' modeling programs, since my understanding is the global warming bruhaha is mostly based on modeling of this type.

edit to add..
The link to the report was found on the CSIRO website on this page.http://www.dar.csiro.au/earthsystems/index.html
It is the only report linked to on the page.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

But look at what a_u_p was actually saying—he's saying we have no business looking at the data and asking questions.

I don't think he's saying this at all. I think he's saying there comes a point where the science exceeds a layman's knowledge. And he's right.

Ask away, but don't get upset if those more in the know disagree with your answers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Don't give me that "morgues are full" emotional stuff please. The reason those people are dead is less to do with heat and more to do with the fact that people are too dumb to know what to do in the heat.

So what you are saying is that Europe will have the coldest winter ever and then even warmer summer next year?

They don't know how to deal with it because they haven't had to deal with it before, and their bodies are probably not acclimatised to it.

For many people, morgues being full of dead people is an emotional thing, so was 9/11 I hear when there were thousands dying. Anyway, they weren't all in the morgues. As the morgues were full, there was at least one report of a body rotting away in a flat for ten days.

As for next year, let us see.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
I don't think he's saying this at all.

Then why does he refuse to answer our basic and direct questions with anything that amounts to anything other than "trust what this source says and don't try and study it yourself"?

Ask away, but don't get upset if those more in the know disagree with your answers.

I don't, as long as they explain why. He refuses to.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


That's hardly the same thing a_u_p is talking about. According to his logic, you shouldn't be allowed to look for comets AT ALL!

Of course new discoveries need to be confirmed. And for the sake of standards and consistency, there does need to be some sort of body who covers things like the names of comets. But look at what a_u_p was actually saying—he's saying we have no business looking at the data and asking questions. Is that not exactly what you do every time you look up at the sky?

Strawman, strawman, strawman.

I never said you can't look at the data and ask questions. Just that

a) You may not be asking informed questions.
b) You may not understand the answer

This is an unfortunate consequence of the age we live in, where knowledge is becoming so specialised and complex that more and more people are become experts on narrower fields of knowledge. Don't shoot the messenger.

If you look at the links at the CSIRO there is a very long published, (ie peer reviewed) paper on their model. Why don't you tell me where their logic is wrong. I can't understand it at all, other than the high level concepts. After that it is, I guess, all fluid dynamics and modelling abstractions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Then why does he refuse to answer our basic and direct questions with anything that amounts to anything other than "trust what this source says and don't try and study it yourself"?



I don't, as long as they explain why. He refuses to.

I do not refuse to answer anything.

I do not have unlimited time available to research such matters, or knowledge at the level that current scientific practice is using to debunk it.

I am not saying to blindly trust what they are saying, but neither you nor I could engage in a meaningful debate with such people. He has a scientist brother in law, who is engaged in investigating the molecluar level interaction of chemical processes. I find this fascinating, the fact that people can now observe a chemical reaction as it takes, place, using cyclotrons, for example, as microscopes.

But the science behind it all is, once again, beyond more than a high level overview before it all gets too complicated. However, these guys don't have multiple web sites put up to question their scientific integrity or ability.

However, as I have already replied, one point, as an example, is that sattellites do not appear to be recording temperature variations that ground stations are. This point was addressed in the 1998 paper. The satellites are measuring something different. Satellite recording has only been conducted over a much shorter time period.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I never said you can't look at the data and ask questions. Just that

a) You may not be asking informed questions.
b) You may not understand the answer

Then why do you refuse to provide the answer, saying we should just take your source's word for it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I do not refuse to answer anything.

I do not have unlimited time available to research such matters, or knowledge at the level that current scientific practice is using to debunk it.

YOU said you had the answer from your source, but that you weren't going to post it.

These are all just pathetic excuses. Either post the data you have, or SHUT UP!

[BobK]

AUP,
I found the text of an Occum's Razor interview with Dr. Brian Tucker, for 20 years Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. Now he's Senior Fellow in the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne.

You might want to ask your friend if he has any respect for this fellow's opinion. Your friend might have even worked under him.

He seems to have a well reasoned view of the politics and science envolved in the GW debate.
Occum's Razor Dr. Brian Tucker (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm)
Bold is mine.
snip...
Brian Tucker: In October 1986, I broadcast two "Ockham's Razor" talks describing The Greenhouse Effect. The first was on the cause, and the second on the effects of higher carbondioxide levels and a warmer climate. It's a useful time now to see what's happened in the intervening ten years. Certainly the ranks of those working on the topic have been enormously swelled beyond mere scientists - by bureaucrats and "policy makers" and by those with particular concerns about industry and society and about the environment. There's been much sound and fury, but I'll confine myself to describing the important developments.

Nowadays it seems to be believed by many that The Greenhouse Effect necessitates major reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbondioxide and methane, lest dire climate change occurs to all our detriment. Typical of more extreme media comment is that by Natasha Bita, environmental writer for The Australian newspaper, who asserted on June 6 that "Scientists warn that the world's climate is in chaos because humans are pumping too much carbondioxide and methane into the atmosphere". Unfortunately few scientists are prepared to go public and say "Rubbish" to such flights of fancy.

Certainly the balance of evidence indicates some Greenhouse effect in observed average global temperature trends, although even this is questioned by our more sceptical colleagues who are irritated by what they see as biased interpretation of the science and too heavy a reliance on complex but still crude climate models. But unchallenged climatic disaster hyperbole has induced something akin to a panic reaction from policy makers, both national and international. In response, our Government, like others, adopted a national interim target of a return to 1988 Greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 and to a 20% reduction by 2005. Also, together with 150 other national signatories, it has ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. This has as its aim the stabilisation of Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere within a reasonable time frame. (Briefly, emissions are what get into the atmosphere, and concentrations are the accumulated amount that stays there).

In my opinion both the national target and the international aim are simply unattainable. To explain this, let me begin by posing the question: Why do we need to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions? Ask this of your family or friends, and you will likely get the reply, "To stop our climate from changing for the worse, of course!" But few realise that such an answer makes four assumptions:

* The first assumption is that the scientific theory linking Greenhouse gases with climate is valid, and that global warming and other changes will be induced by higher gas concentrations, - for if the theory is invalid, then there is no problem.

* The second assumption is that any such climate change is necessarily a detriment to our wellbeing; for clearly there will be winners and losers from any change, and the net effect may be a benefit to many countries, thereby making mitigation for them unnecessary or even undesirable.

* The third assumption is that we can achieve a sufficient world-wide reduction in gas emissions to prevent any climate change that would otherwise occur, for if significant world-wide emission reduction is politically unrealistic, it would be foolish for a limited number of countries to compromise their food and energy production - for that's what's involved - to no good effect.

* And finally there is an assumption that the total cost to society of such a drastic reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions, including social as well as economic consequences, will be less than the cost of adapting to any change in climate, for if it is not, then adaptation is the major sensible policy.

If even one of these assumptions is invalid, the requirement for emission reduction policy disappears. Let's look at them again in a little more detail.
article continues detailing assumtions....

End of article...
In my opinion, it is becoming increasingly clear that adapting our way of life to any future climate change is likely to be a much preferred option to draconian emission reduction. And for planned adaptation to occur a significant improvement in scientific assessments of the likely climate change becomes even more important.

I believe the Framework Convention on Climate Change is gradually being seen as flawed. But since no such international Convention has ever been revoked, we will see the emergence of face-saving arguments and the utilisation of caveats carefully interwoven into commitments.

Together with the occupancy of high moral ground and blatant self interest, the 'precautionary principle' is a central plank in the arguments of those countries earnestly seeking reductions in emissions - seemingly at any cost to their fellow world citizens. But precaution against - we don't really know what. It's vitally important that we shouldn't allow emotionally based fears to stampede us into chasing non-existent solutions thereby making other aspects of our lives very much more difficult. Certainly it's about time we converted from wishful thinking to realism when planning for the future.

It seems he holds an opinion similar to mine. We lose little by waiting for the science on human induced global warming to be firmly established. We are likely to lose a lot (economically), if the current models turn out to be invalid as to the amount of human induced global warming.

[a_unique_person]

I will ask him, although, as I have already pointed out, he doesn't want to spend much time on internet debates, he already goes to many scientific conferences around the world that debate all these issues to a much greater depth than we will ever do here. He is always ready to change his mind, when presented with evidence. Conversations I have had with him reveal him to be ready to absorb new knowledge when it is made available. That is, something that is new to me, eg, I have read in New Scientist or heard about here, has already been talked about in conferences and adopted into models where relevant.

In contrast, he sees the internet as being a place where people do not take a scientific approach and are set in their views. He has no interest at all in talking to such people, as he sees it as a waste of time. (Did I ever mention he is smarter than me?)

He has never taken an alarmist view of GW. When I have asked him about it, he has always stated what he believes to be a reasonable scientific position. That is, there will be problems, but no disasters in the realm of water world.

For example, we live near the beach in a low lying area. I asked him if we shouldn't be moving to higher ground, would our area be inundated? He thought that the rise in water levels would not be that extreme, but we may need to build sea walls to cope with the extremes of high tide.

Now, the question is, does unchallenged hyperbole cause the call for greenhouse reductions? As I live near the sea, we also have a large port, residential and industrial areas that are in low lying areas. What is the cost to be of protecting all these areas from, not permanent, but occasional inundation. Don't forget, you don't have to have a permanent inundation to cause serious economic disruption.

In Australia, the effect of El Nino has been well studied, and scientists were going around and education farmers how to plan for the roughly 7 year cycle it takes so they would know when to plant/not to plant, stock up on feed etc. Imagine how much the economy has been affected when the last El Nino came and went, but this time the drought stayed. Melbourne's water supply, which had been overflowing in recent years, has been down to 40%, and even if normal rains return, will still take years to recover.

Stage 2 restrictions are now in effect for water use in residential Melbourne. In the country, many areas have restrictions on personal washing and no use of water, at all, for things such as washing cars. This, in the middle of winter when it usually pours rain. The rain has recovered to an extent this year, but recovering from the drought will take years, and this is assuming we get normal rainfall for the next years.

The IPA is a conservative think tank, which hires people because they say what it wants people to hear. It would never have hired someone who did not already say something in accord with their views. Note that the scientist, however, is not denying GW, only saying that he questions the human contribution to it and if the proposed cure will be worse than the disease. I have heard another speaker, from the US, saying that nothing the human race has ever done has ever had an adverse effect on the environment.

Now, in the past when people led a nodadic or semi nomadic lifestyle, populations appear to have been constantly on the move. The human race managed to spread itself across the entire globe, nearly. This is not an option in this age. To say that we can all just move up to an Greenland paradise is a ludicrous attitude to take. The economic cost of climate change, if the recent events in Europe are a guide, will be massive, and the suffering enourmous.

To change our economies to a less energy intensive model, would not, I believe, have any real impact on our happiness, but may help to ensure that we do not have a rapid and hugely dispruptive impact on our societies.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


YOU said you had the answer from your source, but that you weren't going to post it.

These are all just pathetic excuses. Either post the data you have, or SHUT UP!

I have posted a list of online published papers in the thread. Look it up at your leisure. As these are scientific papers, rather than internet sites, they are very technical and involved and peer reviewed by other scientists, not part time pundits like us. I doubt you will be able to make any more sense of them than I can.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have posted a list of online published papers in the thread.

None of which respond to our particular questions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


None of which respond to our particular questions.

here is a good one.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/enting_2002a.pdf

it appears to answer many of your questions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


here is a good one.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/enting_2002a.pdf

it appears to answer many of your questions.

I've taken a look thorough it, and I didn't see anything that showed whether or not this warming trend was any different from the one leading up to the MWP, or what we could expect from coming out of the LIA, and I didn't see anything saying that the rising CO₂ levels are out of the ordinary for such a warming trend.

In fact, none of the data seemed to go back any further than 1950.

[RandFan]

AUP
when are you going to prove or disprove the existence of the gravition.

Originally posted by shanek
As soon as I make the claim that it does or doesn't exist. If no one else is going to say it, touché

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
If no one else is going to say it, touché


Not at all. The analogy was on the basis that understanding GW is every bit as complex as understanding quantum physics, give or take an IQ point or two.

Shane doesn't make claims on QM, partly because he is not interested, but partly because he knows he does not have the expertise. Yet he is quite happy to make claims on GW, without a similar level of required expertise.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



Not at all. The analogy was on the basis that understanding GW is every bit as complex as understanding quantum physics, give or take an IQ point or two.

Shane doesn't make claims on QM, partly because he is not interested, but partly because he knows he does not have the expertise. Yet he is quite happy to make claims on GW, without a similar level of required expertise.

I'm sorry but that's an artifact of a false analogy. If we were facing a environmental crisis caused by man-made gravitons then lots of people would be learning and studying the effects of gravitons as they affect our daily lives.

Global warming is not that complex (and I should know having studied both oceanography and QM) but unlike QM, there is no theory of climate and no exact solutions in the behavior of the atmosphere/ocean system, only approximations.

We are part-time pundits as you say, but do we declare some parts of science off limits because we are not fully accredited climatologists? Does Randi have any qualifications in chemistry, physics or biology to design experiments to test paranormal claims? Or homeopathic claims?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diamond


I'm sorry but that's an artifact of a false analogy. If we were facing a environmental crisis caused by man-made gravitons then lots of people would be learning and studying the effects of gravitons as they affect our daily lives.

Global warming is not that complex (and I should know having studied both oceanography and QM) but unlike QM, there is no theory of climate and no exact solutions in the behavior of the atmosphere/ocean system, only approximations.

We are part-time pundits as you say, but do we declare some parts of science off limits because we are not fully accredited climatologists? Does Randi have any qualifications in chemistry, physics or biology to design experiments to test paranormal claims? Or homeopathic claims?

I am not saying we cannot debate the issue, but to think we can come up with some rebuttal from a few biased web sites to people who have been working on the issue full time for years following a scientific process is going to be pretty dodgy.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I am not saying we cannot debate the issue, but to think we can come up with some rebuttal from a few biased web sites to people who have been working on the issue full time for years following a scientific process is going to be pretty dodgy.

To me, that is like saying that we can't understand the issue, the data or the conclusions of the study but let's change our way of life never the less because some guy said so. When people make great claims they need great evidence to back them up, not some shaky studies. Also, I still do not understand what you mean by biased web sites. If it has a study from a reputable organization that's not decades old and it there is no study that disproves that, then why is it bad?

Edited for spelling errors

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am not saying we cannot debate the issue, but to think we can come up with some rebuttal from a few biased web sites to people who have been working on the issue full time for years following a scientific process is going to be pretty dodgy. I'm not so certain that the websites that you accuse of bias are any more or less biased than your friend and other "scientists" who support the theory that humans are directly and significantly impacting global climate.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Shane doesn't make claims on QM, partly because he is not interested, but partly because he knows he does not have the expertise. Yet he is quite happy to make claims on GW, without a similar level of required expertise. What are Shane's claims as they relate to GW? Maybe I missed something but it seems to me that Shane's claims are consistent with his claims regarding QM, and that is that there is sufficient evidence to make a conclusion.

Please correct me if I am wrong and I apologize to Shane if that is the case.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Shane doesn't make claims on QM, partly because he is not interested, but partly because he knows he does not have the expertise. Yet he is quite happy to make claims on GW, without a similar level of required expertise.

Well, in my experience, Shanek also routinely ponies up straw men, irrelevancies, extractions from context, and a whole host of annoying rhetorical stunts in support of his position.

I don't know his position on either QM or GW. I have no idea where he lives, but I personally (this doesn't prove the CAUSE, only the existance of an effect) witnessed 4 years of "50 year outlier" weather in a row in NJ before I moved out here.

4 consecutive years of outliers like that is, well, bizzare, to say the least.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Well, in my experience, Shanek also routinely ponies up straw men, irrelevancies, extractions from context, and a whole host of annoying rhetorical stunts in support of his position.

You are perfectly free to point it out whenever you think I have done so.