Scientists wrong on global warming [Archive] - Page 2

Schneibster

12th May 2007, 10:38 AM

Scheib are there any handy references to how changes decrease in the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio correlates with the observed changes in CO2?Not that I could find. I saw a statement in Physical Review Letters where a scientist commented that quite a lot of the problem of understanding how AGW works, and even what it precisely is, is that the knowledge necessary is spread across many scientific disciplines. In this particular case, paleontology, paleobiology, paleogeology, nuclear physics, atmospheric physics, oceanic physics, and the biochemistry of photosynthesis must all be understood to comprehend the proof. I'll write a brief precis here for you. You can check it all, but you'll have to go to about five or six different sources.

The fossil fuel<->C14 level link was explored in the early 1950s by Hans Suess. Suess set out to calibrate the C14 scale so that carbon dating would be more accurate. What he found was a decrease in atmospheric C14 beginning with the industrial revolution. Today this is known as the Suess effect. He showed that fossils should contain little C14, because they have stopped absorbing it from the atmosphere, and they are older than ten half-lives of C14 (about 60KY). Fossil fuels are, of course, quite literally fossils, particularly coal, and he tested the amount of C14 in coal samples from many mines around the world and proved he was correct.

However, that is not the only isotopic evidence available. There is also C12/C13 ratio. C13 is more common than C14, but still fairly rare. It is not radioactive, as C14 is, but mass spectrometers are no longer cutting-edge technology (at least not in science labs- they might be in forensic labs, if CSI and its spinoffs are to be believed). It turns out if you investigate that although we usually think of photosynthesis as a single process, it actually proceeds in several different ways. Some plants use one, some another. And one of these, which happens to be the commonest, favors C12 over C13. Therefore when plants that use this particular photosynthesis process take CO2 from the atmosphere and incorporate it into their structures, they take an inordinate amount of C12.

Thus, between C12, C13, and C14, we can figure out:
1. How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels, by the C12/C14 ratio;
2. How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from deforestation, by the C12/C13 ratio after calibration for changes due to increased C12 from fossil fuels (coal came from plants, and they used that same type of photosynthesis, so burning coal increases the C12 over both C13 and C14);
3. How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from outgassing as the ocean warms, by increase in CO2 that does not change any of these ratios (CO2 from the sea is mostly not involved in these processes, so its carbon ratios are approximately those it originally absorbed);
and much more. And it turns out that the ratios of C14/C12 and C13/C12 have been steadily dropping since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and in lockstep with the increase in atmospheric CO2.

That's as good a review of the situation as I've seen. You can google up the Suess effect, and search on Realclimate for information on the C12/C13 ratio; I reviewed the IPCC TAR from 2001 and found it made many assumptions on these points as to the knowledge of the reader, so while it's a good reference for the scientifically sophisticated, it's not really all that good a reference for the general reader, but it does give more scientific detail on the C12/C13 ratio. It doesn't mention C12/C14 ratio because that's so well known in the field of archeology. I hope you find this helpful.

Schneibster

12th May 2007, 10:59 AM

That's a heartwarming story, but surely when you reflect on it, it must seem that your optimism was and is misplaced? Because for all the billions spent on it, and all the wonderful co-operation of teams around the world, isn't it true that commercial fusion, that beacon of new technology, was then, and still is, estimated to be 50 years away? In fact, it has become a running joke that since the start of fusion research, it has always been estimated to be about 50 years away. Not a particularly inspiring example on which to base an optimism that technology will be able to solve our problems before they solve us.I don't think he was talking about fusion, and I know I wasn't. I'm talking about fission. Fusion is pie in the sky right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong fusion supporter, but for me it's a key example of why this kind of techno-optimism is misplaced. I think there's a good chance practical fusion energy will eventually be cracked, but there's a huge and unpredictable gap between the concept and practical implementation. It's possible that given sufficient time, resources, committment, etc., technology could solve the problems of climate warming, but there is little sign of the last two, and we don't appear to have the time to make much impact with existing technologies, let alone develop novel ones.You and I agree completely on this. That's why I'm saying things like, "We're screwed."

Another point that has only been touched in passing in the forum is the 'Clathrate Gun Hypothesis' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_Gun_Hypothesis)- the potential effects of climate warming on methane clathrates, both in the sea bed of the continental shelves and in the arctic permafrost. As I understand it, recent estimates are of total reservoirs roughly equivalent to between 1000 and 3000 gigatonnes equivalent of carbon - compared to the 700 Gt of carbon already in the atmosphere. The arctic permafrost is already melting and releasing methane, and coastal water temperatures are rising - some releases have already been observed.

What is the panel's opinion on the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis?Strictly speaking, the proper CGH is not that it could happen, but that it has happened, specifically that it was a cause of the Permian (AKA P-T) extinction and perhaps other mass extinction events. Note, A cause, not THE cause.

The laboratory evidence that methane clathrates spontaneously undergo rapid decomposition when the temperature rises beyond a critical point is undisputed. What precisely that temperature is under the conditions that the clathrates in the ocean exist in, how much more heat would have to be injected into the oceans to get to that temperature, and how that heat would be distributed, are not well known- but it is certain that if the temperature of the deep oceans rises sufficiently, the clathrates will decompose, likely most of it at around the same time, and if that happens, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 5-10C in a decade or less. And there is little question that that would be a mass extinction event.

So while it's scary, at this point, it's probably not inevitable. And when the major struggle is to get people to even believe GW is happening, far less that we're responsible or should be doing something about it, I see little point in discussing the stuff that's far away; let's stick to the immediate problem, is my thought.

dlorde

12th May 2007, 11:56 AM

I don't think he was talking about fusion, and I know I wasn't. I'm talking about fission. Fusion is pie in the sky right now.He mentioned a fusion project as the trigger for his techno-optimism.

That's why I'm saying things like, "We're screwed."Ditto. You and I agree on this. For most of my life, I've been a sci-fi enthusiast and techno-optimist, but over time, particularly recent years, observation of the selective way technologies are developed and abused, and the results of this, has led me to a more dystopian view. I thought we were probably screwed when the first studies of glacier retreat and ice-shelf loss were published, but I thought we'd have a century or two to think about it and act. The recent evidence has really scared me, and although I'm not looking to move to higher ground, I'm glad I don't have any children. Atmospheric pollution is masking much of the underlying global warming, and efforts to reduce CO2 (scrubbers, etc.) are likely to reduce atmospheric particulates, as will other clean technologies. Add this feedback to that of reduced polar albedo and in fifty years time, I see the beginning of serious flooding, droughts, population displacement, desertification advancing, food shortages, more hurricanes, the collapse of whole ecosystems (continental and oceanic), and of course, the end of oil. I don't see even large-scale conversion to nuclear power having a significant effect. I believe we've already past the tipping point of runaway climate change. And check the latest news from Australia - a drought so severe that they're about to stop irrigation on farms.

Quality of life in the industrial west is at an all-time high. Enjoy it while it lasts. At some point in the next 30 years, I think it will take a radical turn for the worse.

And when the major struggle is to get people to even believe GW is happening, far less that we're responsible or should be doing something about it, I see little point in discussing the stuff that's far away; let's stick to the immediate problem, is my thought.I suppose it's better that people try to do something about the problem rather than abandon hope, but look at Kyoto - in terms of climate influence, a mild gesture of concern that the major carbon contributors have mostly ignored. Even if the US changes policy under pressure from within, can you see India and China sacrificing their economic growth (albeit that China is already growing at an unsustainable rate)? however convinced certain individuals in government might be, it would be political suicide - and the most influential groups, the multi-nationals, have entirely different agendas.

"Always look on the bright side of life..."
Monty Python

CapelDodger

12th May 2007, 04:24 PM

I suppose it's better that people try to do something about the problem rather than abandon hope, but look at Kyoto - in terms of climate influence, a mild gesture of concern that the major carbon contributors have mostly ignored. Even if the US changes policy under pressure from within, can you see India and China sacrificing their economic growth (albeit that China is already growing at an unsustainable rate)? however convinced certain individuals in government might be, it would be political suicide - and the most influential groups, the multi-nationals, have entirely different agendas.

"Always look on the bright side of life..."
Monty Python

We're straying far from the science, this perhaps more suited to the Politics forum. On the other hand, that's a frickin' bear-pit, and anyway the science has gone fairly quiet.

I'm sure we're going to see nations and regions responding to their own particular concerns, with only scant regard to what they can contribute to a global program. That means we'll be seeing coping strategies for a good while yet (perhaps several decades), rather than anti-warming strategies. Talk yes, action only when it serves local interests, as locally perceived.

Consider China, where the powers-that-be are very aware of the threat. They appreciate that something must be done. But paramount is the need for more generating capacity fast and cheap. That means well-tried, mass-produced, coal-powered generating plants. A bonus comes with China's vast coal reserves, which makes this new plant strategically invulnerable. Self-sufficiency, doncha know.

Anyhoo ... waddaya gonna do? It would take a global Pearl Harbour to suddenly mobilise the world the way the US was mobilised back in the day, and I don't see climate change coming up with one of those. Its impact will be incremental and will vary by region and by economic class. So I agree that things can only get worse for a generation or three.

I'm a baby-boomer, born 1954 in a very stable family and national environment, and I've hit this incredible window in history. No war, famine, plague or Great Depression has ever blighted my community. I've heard two IRA bombs go off and lived through the Thatcher years, that's as bad as it's got so far. And I did very well out of the Thatcher years, there, I've said it.

History is one of my things, and I realise how very unusual my (Western) generation's experience has been. Sadly, I think such luck is going to remain unusual.

CapelDodger

12th May 2007, 05:29 PM

(with reference to states having lost control of the individual, worldwide).

Why is that not a good thing?

It's left them open to control by other, probably less benign forces.

As you discuss GW, were there large information closed sections of the world, such as used to be the case with Russia and China, your science, logic, and opinion could have no effect.

That would depend entirely on my standing in and with the hierarchy. Under the ideological froth these were pretty solid meritocracies.

Now it can.

No sign of it yet, any more than ever :) . My standing with the liberal-capitalist hierarchy has never been terribly high.

So I would argue that even if you fully agree with the call to action in the IPCC report, that call to action could not have been made say in the context of the world of the 1970s or 1980s.
The call to action is not being made now, nor is there much sign of it. Talks about arrangements for conferences to decide targets and timescales and exclusions ... Kyoto generated absolutely zero momentum, just as I said at the time.

Unless the implication is that only by state control of the individual can we solve the GW issue in the short term. Is that essentially your argument?
There's no short-term solution, there's only mitigation, limiting how bad the worst turns out.

There are degrees of state control. Consider the state control that underlay the US victories in the 40's; it controlled the economy, the workforce, the financial market (they wished!). The media - publishing stories that "undermined the national effort" earned you a visit, possibly a clubbing for Hating America. I wouldn't be sorry to see the contrarians of today get a dose of that.

Pearl Harbour concentrated the national mind wonderfully, and the population threw themselves into the thing. They sincerely wanted the national government to arrange and organise the utter annihilation of Japan (and Germany if they wanted to get involved). They trusted the government to channel national capacity into national butt-kickery, and it performed magnificently.

If there were to be an equivalent global response to climate change it would require the same sort of intervention. It would require a global Pearl Harbour to make it possible, and there's not likely to be one. Regional responses, to local problems, will probably include more state intervention and regulation. That's what happens in periods of crisis.

mhaze

12th May 2007, 06:36 PM

I don't think he was talking about fusion, and I know I wasn't. I'm talking about fission. Fusion is pie in the sky right now.

You and I agree completely on this. That's why I'm saying things like, "We're screwed."

Just to clarify. Why I found that event to be a reason for techno optimism is and was certainly not based on fusion prospects. Rather I was trying to indicate that I was impressed with those individuals, who in a determined and possibly fanatical way, were driving their project forward - a mutual project between the US and Russia - in an incredibly hostile environment. Maybe this is a bit hard to comprehend today.

I'm saying if we have people with that drive, and with tools such as are becoming available, that is reason for optimism.

Another time and place we can joke and sneer at the Princeton tomahawk (purposeful mispelling there...).

mhaze

12th May 2007, 06:48 PM

There are degrees of state control. Consider the state control that underlay the US victories in the 40's; it controlled the economy, the workforce, the financial market (they wished!). The media - publishing stories that "undermined the national effort" earned you a visit, possibly a clubbing for Hating America. I wouldn't be sorry to see the contrarians of today get a dose of that.

Pearl Harbour concentrated the national mind wonderfully, and the population threw themselves into the thing. They sincerely wanted the national government to arrange and organise the utter annihilation of Japan (and Germany if they wanted to get involved). They trusted the government to channel national capacity into national butt-kickery, and it performed magnificently.

If there were to be an equivalent global response to climate change it would require the same sort of intervention. It would require a global Pearl Harbour to make it possible, and there's not likely to be one. Regional responses, to local problems, will probably include more state intervention and regulation. That's what happens in periods of crisis.

Well, that was my point about our having done the Apollo project in only 8 years. But it took a similar environment, with an enemy that was hated and feared. And it took Von Braun, who quite fanatically drove his rocket designs through first, Germany, then the US. He really deserves the lion's share of the credit.

blutoski

12th May 2007, 07:05 PM

Pearl Harbour concentrated the national mind wonderfully, and the population threw themselves into the thing. They sincerely wanted the national government to arrange and organise the utter annihilation of Japan (and Germany if they wanted to get involved). They trusted the government to channel national capacity into national butt-kickery, and it performed magnificently.

This is probably half-true. After PH, there was still wasteful political infighting. Republicans in Congress wanted the president impeached for deriliction of duty as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and Republican-friendly newspapers and their political columnists seemed to feel their contribution to national defense came from writing polemics against the administration rather than enlisting.

If there were to be an equivalent global response to climate change it would require the same sort of intervention. It would require a global Pearl Harbour to make it possible, and there's not likely to be one.

I think you're right about this. Not that there won't be, say, a major catastrophe. Even in the US, perhaps. The problem is that iconoclasts will life in a state of denial about the authentic cause of said disaster until the day they die. PH had the benefit of being so obviously a military attack.

As it happens, Admiral Kimmel (CinCPac on Dec 7 1941) thought a submarine attack on close-quartered ships would be the most likely Japanese pre-emptive strike precisely because a torpedo below the waterline so closely resembles an accidental detonation of stored ammo, and an American response would have to wait for a long forensic investigation.

Schneibster

12th May 2007, 08:39 PM

Just to clarify. Why I found that event to be a reason for techno optimism is and was certainly not based on fusion prospects. Rather I was trying to indicate that I was impressed with those individuals, who in a determined and possibly fanatical way, were driving their project forward - a mutual project between the US and Russia - in an incredibly hostile environment. Maybe this is a bit hard to comprehend today.

I'm saying if we have people with that drive, and with tools such as are becoming available, that is reason for optimism.

Another time and place we can joke and sneer at the Princeton tomahawk (purposeful mispelling there...).[/quote]I got this, that's why I said I didn't think you were talking about fusion. But I won't tell you you didn't need to clarify. On the other hand, I don't know that I agree with you; certainly I don't agree that we can just sit back and wait and technology will take care of it, if that's your thesis (and it's not clear it's not). We need to get off our lazy butts and get movin'. If we had got started in 1993 when Clinton and Gore tried to get us going, instead of a bunch of whining like happened and has been happening ever since, we'd be in pretty good shape right now, and the subject of this thread wouldn't be such a bad blow. We'd all be patting ourselves on the back about what a good thing it was we did something while we had the chance. It's often said Bog helps them as helps themselves. I'd say I have the same impression of technology. It's not magic.

Schneibster

12th May 2007, 10:02 PM

This is probably half-true. After PH, there was still wasteful political infighting. Republicans in Congress wanted the president impeached for deriliction of duty as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and Republican-friendly newspapers and their political columnists seemed to feel their contribution to national defense came from writing polemics against the administration rather than enlisting.My father has never forgiven the Republicans for this. To this day, he calls them liars and traitors for it. It was apparently a common opinion; I've heard quite a bit of this from those who were alive at the time. We always think, somehow, that those who came before us weren't as sophisticated as we are. It's almost never true.

I think you're right about this. Not that there won't be, say, a major catastrophe. Even in the US, perhaps. The problem is that iconoclasts will life in a state of denial about the authentic cause of said disaster until the day they die. PH had the benefit of being so obviously a military attack.And even then, there were die-hards who lived and live in a state of denial; have you ever heard the accusation that FDR knew about the attack and let it happen to make an excuse to get into the war?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3522a943db.htm

Note the source. Any questions?

blutoski

12th May 2007, 10:20 PM

My father has never forgiven the Republicans for this. To this day, he calls them liars and traitors for it. It was apparently a common opinion; I've heard quite a bit of this from those who were alive at the time. We always think, somehow, that those who came before us weren't as sophisticated as we are. It's almost never true.

And even then, there were die-hards who lived and live in a state of denial; have you ever heard the accusation that FDR knew about the attack and let it happen to make an excuse to get into the war?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3522a943db.htm

Note the source. Any questions?

Oh, yes. The reason I have spent a great deal of time exploring the history of PH is that I wanted to see if 9/11 was just history repeating itself.

There are actually three conspiracy theories surrounding PH:

1. that the executive was diplomatically and militarily belligerent, and unintentionally forced Japan to war
2. that the executive was diplomatically and militarily soft, and unintentionally invited Japan to war
3. that the executive wanted war against the Axis, and so manoevred diplomacy to force the Japanese hand, and furthermore deliberately witheld intelligence from PH operations, so as to maximize losses

There are parallels with 9/11 but differences, too.

I'll stop participating, as this is probably more appropriate for the conspiracy forum.

blutoski

12th May 2007, 10:27 PM

I think you're right about this. Not that there won't be, say, a major catastrophe. Even in the US, perhaps. The problem is that iconoclasts will life in a state of denial about the authentic cause of said disaster until the day they die. PH had the benefit of being so obviously a military attack.

Just to provide a concrete illustration of this...

I picture New York under 50 feet of water, and the Cato Institute propping up their "World-renowned Climatology Expert," (actually the hairdresser for a TV weatherman from Scranton, self-tutored in "clouds and stuff") who claims that it's just part of the natural cycle, but if it isn't, it's all Ted Kennedy's fault somehow.

Schneibster

12th May 2007, 10:49 PM

I was thinking Politics, myself. But I agree, not in Science.

Corsair 115

13th May 2007, 12:08 AM

Well, that was my point about our having done the Apollo project in only 8 years.Yes, but Apollo was made a national priority for the United States and was funded accordingly (though not without some measure of arm-twisting). The Apollo Program cost in the area of $125-$150 billion in today's dollars.

Is there much likelihood of an American administration standing up and making the kind of national committment in terms of effort, funds, and resources that Apollo received to promote and develop alternative energy sources and energy efficiency? There's been no sign of it yet...

Harpoon

13th May 2007, 02:12 AM

It's the attitude that we must be prepared to live with the certainty of greater human suffering in order to save the earth's environment that freightens me about the global warming cause. Somethings seem pretty self-evident. The earth has been warming, ice melting and sea levels rising for some 40,000ish odd years without a lot of human intervention. But we're fully aware of all the crap we dump into the environment. It's not at all outlandish to PRESUME we're contributing to a host of environmental problems, much less need to prove it. The question is how much of a contribution to the documented phenomenon is human caused. And what amelioration is possible? I accept that the theory of rapid climate change is supported by sufficient evidence to warrant great concern. But I also recognize the potential cost to human liberty that would be required to rein in global C02 emissions. If draconian measures were adopted by all of the world's governments, I suspect the elite classes would have their expensive green power, while the underclasses would have to get by with antiquated, ultra-expensive fossil-fuel power. I can support a movement to save the planet, unless it's going to be at the cost of greater economic disparity among mankind. I'm not a global warming denier, but I distrust those who will use the issue to garner excessive influence over the global economy. Nothing we do in an attempt to save the environment will matter until we address human population. Cutting your per capita CO2 emission levels in half is pointless if you are going to triple your population. You ask what you can do? Try birth control. And be skeptical of those who exploit science -- even good science -- for political causes.

Harpoon

13th May 2007, 02:15 AM

Sorry. I'll try to control myself and be brief in the future

dlorde

13th May 2007, 03:00 AM

... Not that there won't be, say, a major catastrophe. Even in the US, perhaps. The problem is that iconoclasts will life in a state of denial about the authentic cause of said disaster until the day they die.New Orleans springs to mind. The loss of a thriving city, but 18 months later it seems pretty much forgotten. I wonder whether it will come to be seen as a warning that was ignored...

dogbite666

13th May 2007, 04:05 AM

I can show that an increase in CO2 would be expected to cause warming.

And I can show you that an increase in temperature would be expected to cause an increase in CO2. Also, an increase in water vapour which is by far the major green house gas!

a_unique_person

13th May 2007, 05:09 AM

And I can show you that an increase in temperature would be expected to cause an increase in CO2. Also, an increase in water vapour which is by far the major green house gas!

Are you starting to understand how the positive feedback process of global warming is understood to work? Excellent.

Diamond

13th May 2007, 06:47 AM

Are you starting to understand how the positive feedback process of global warming is understood to work? Excellent.

If there was such a positive feedback, we wouldn't exist today. The earth's climate is dominated by negative feedbacks.

The only reason to even discuss positive feedbacks is because the supposed mechanism (carbon dioxide rise) is far too small to cause the observed temperature rise. In the wonderful world of climate modelling, just because a hypothesis doesn't fit the facts is no reason to reject it when there's lots of non-physical fudge-factors to be added. Climate models can give any answer you want - just add assumptions and stir.

Not to be discussed by AUP on the subject of climate models and carbon dioxide:

- the cooling of Antarctica and the growth of the icesheets
- the complete lack of any temperature rise in the Southern Hemisphere in the last 30 years despite being freer of "cooling" sulphates than the North.
- the consistent behavior of carbon dioxide and methane in icecore records to follow temperature rise by centuries and the complete absence of the reverse scenario (where's the positive feedbacks then?)
- the failure of climate models to predict so much as the next El Nino, never mind fifty or a hundred years hence. Even attempts to model 3 months ahead appear to be consistently poor even for just Australia.
- the persistent failure of climate models to agree even with each other on regional temperature change and precipitation patterns.
- the assumption of exponential growth of carbon dioxide to "drive" a linear increase in temperature - which has never happened.
- the lack of any significant trend in upper troposphere temperatures despite the clear prediction from Greenhouse theory that the upper troposphere should warm much faster than the surface.

Instead we're fed cant about the failure of climate models to predict something as apparently simple as Arctic ice cap extent, as a supposed demonstration that climate modellers "are being too conservative" - rather than just wrong. Climate modellers it seems, can never be wrong - just naive in their assumptions; nice work if you can get it.

Also we keep up the mantra about something called "climate stabilization" as if climate can be stabilized when its a loosely-coupled non-linear system. But then of course that would lead to a discussion about where the notion of climate stability came from, Hockey Sticks and all, wouldn't it? And that would never do.

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 06:49 AM

Just to provide a concrete illustration of this...

I picture New York under 50 feet of water, and the Cato Institute propping up their "World-renowned Climatology Expert," (actually the hairdresser for a TV weatherman from Scranton, self-tutored in "clouds and stuff") who claims that it's just part of the natural cycle, but if it isn't, it's all Ted Kennedy's fault somehow.

:D

I picture a contrarian hunched over his computer with the ice-caps lapping around his ankles, furiously posting that global warming can't be true because his feet are cold.

Cainkane1

13th May 2007, 06:49 AM

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 07:13 AM

This is probably half-true. After PH, there was still wasteful political infighting. Republicans in Congress wanted the president impeached for deriliction of duty as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and Republican-friendly newspapers and their political columnists seemed to feel their contribution to national defense came from writing polemics against the administration rather than enlisting./quote]

My treatment was very broad-brush. The right's visceral hatred of FDR was such that I'm sure some would have preferred losing the Pacific War to having FDR take credit for winning it. (That hatred still survives in pockets.)

[quote]Not that there won't be, say, a major catastrophe.

I don't doubt there'll be a number of them, but I doubt any will have an immediate and obvous global impact.

PH had the benefit of being so obviously a military attack.

That's something everybody understands, and is undeniably anthropogenic. It also had the benefit of being a national issue, affecting everybody. It couldn't be a case of "Well, that's very sad for Hawaii, but what's it got to do with me?".

As it happens, Admiral Kimmel (CinCPac on Dec 7 1941) thought a submarine attack on close-quartered ships would be the most likely Japanese pre-emptive strike precisely because a torpedo below the waterline so closely resembles an accidental detonation of stored ammo, and an American response would have to wait for a long forensic investigation.

Echoes of the USS Maine blowing-up in Havana harbour, which probably made quite an impression on the young Kimmel.

Wandering way off-topic :blush:.

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 07:15 AM

I've read that this global warming is caused by sunspot activity and that our entire solar system is warming up. Mars for instance is rapidly losing its CO2 ice.
I've also read that Greenland was named Greenland because of its dense heavily forested interior. This is a natural phenomena and theres not much we can do about it.
I, too, have read masses of crapola. The trick is to recognise it as such.

Diamond

13th May 2007, 07:25 AM

I, too, have read masses of crapola. The trick is to recognise it as such.

The trick is first to recognize that your own belief system filters your prejudices in a highly efficient way.

That would be called skepticism, as opposed to the Lucianarchy-style pseudo-skepticism of being skeptical about skepticism of your own position.

Wandering way off-topic

This thread was never on topic in the first place. It had as a proposition that GLOBAL warming was worse than predicted by climate models because climate models did not predict the melting rate of the ARCTIC. This was supposed to be because climate modellers were too conservative.

On the other hand, those same climate models predict Antarctic warming and ice sheet loss, instead of cooling and ice sheet thickening, which actually happened. Were the climate modellers too liberal?

We could discuss them, but CapelDodgy's filter has obliterated inconvenient truths from his viewpoint.

mhaze

13th May 2007, 08:15 AM

I got this, that's why I said I didn't think you were talking about fusion. But I won't tell you you didn't need to clarify. On the other hand, I don't know that I agree with you; certainly I don't agree that we can just sit back and wait and technology will take care of it, if that's your thesis (and it's not clear it's not). We need to get off our lazy butts and get movin'.[/quote]

:)
All IPOD devices and Treo style devices are hereby required to have the free Wikipedia encyclopedia (http://palmtops.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=palmtops&zu=http%3A%2F%2Finfodisiac.com%2FWikipedia%2Findex .html) in them; further, bonus carbon credits will be provided upon filling out the requisite government meritocracy paperwork in triplicate for anyone having US Army Survival Manual (http://www.equipped.com/fm21-76.htm)FM 21-76 on said device.

However, certified Stoned Slackers found without these assets will be subjected to fines and possible imprisonment, on the second violation.

And is the rumour I heard about free personal electric power for life for anyone getting an accredited engineering degree in nuclear technology true?

mhaze

13th May 2007, 08:47 AM

The trick is first to recognize that your own belief system filters your prejudices in a highly efficient way.

those same climate models predict Antarctic warming and ice sheet loss, instead of cooling and ice sheet thickening, which actually happened. Were the climate modellers too liberal?

Diamond, I'll go with the GW AGW on seeing working predictive models of the future - not modeling of past events, as you have critiqued. There is a concern by skeptics of GW that the understanding of this stuff is imperfect; but simultaneously, there is a concern by those who believe in GW/AGW that waiting for certain evidence is not a wise path. Both points of view seem to have some merit do they not?

What are the implications of "solving GW" in terms of "what we must do"? Some would "solve GW" by basically, trying to exert controls which effectively, makes everyone miserable. What evidence is there that a social program approach to "solving GW" would be any more successful than the "War on Drugs".

The cure to the disease may be worse than the illness. As one who worked in mental hospitals in the era when nyphomanics and homosexuals were diagnoses of mental disorders requiring confinement, when shock therapy was the scientific way to treat many mental illnesses, I am skeptical of both supposed diseases and supposed cures.

And we're talking about the health of the whole planet here....

Harpoon

13th May 2007, 11:24 AM

Careful, Tex. That's sounding reasonable. Get you in big trouble with the GW advocates and opposing heretics.
In the valley where I live in arid eastern Nevada, there's a marshy area -- the vestige of what was once a valley-wide lake. Archaeological evidence shows villages around the lake living off the fish and water fowl. In this valley over the past 500 years the lake has shrunken to marshy ground. In adjacent valleys the lakes have dried completely. In the Great Basin (that area of Nevada and Utah where no rivers connect to the sea) drought conditions have generally worsened over the past recent centuries. Climate change?
As for the Vikings in Greenland, Eric the Red should have been known as Eric the Promoter. The island wasn't green when he discovered it. He used the term to attract colonists. Even so, the island had pasture land that supported livestock. But during the period known as the Little Ice Age, conditions worsened. The Skraelings (Inuit) encroached on the Viking settlements on the western side of the island, but climate change seems to be the best explanation for the disappearance of the final Norse, agriculural settlement on the southeastern coast.
I believe severe drought limited crop production in France in 1778, followed by an unusually cold winter that clogged mill streams with ice. That led to the high price of bread, which sparked the French Revolution.
Such examples from the past should not be used to deny GW, but should be additional information about the threat to human activity caused by climate change. More efficient use of our finite fossil fuels and better alternative sources of energy make sense for a variety of reasons.
Government can do a lot through offering incentives, but mandating broadbased emission levels is identical to government controlling production -- an experiment I believe failed in the USSR and other socialistic societies.
Apparently, I erred in my earlier claim to be brief in future posts.

blutoski

13th May 2007, 11:41 AM

I sort of have a weird thing that I do with skeptical topics: I sort them into a hierarchy of claims. See: BCSkeptics: Claim Hierarchy (http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/claims/index.html)

The global warming claim is in principle about naturalism (a claim about nature, which is to say, a scientifically testable claim) but the debate typically shifts into claims about people (typically, science as a social phenomenon a la Kuhn) which are not really easy to 'test'.

Several scientific fields are vulnerable to this corruption, and they have a similar thread: they're historical sciences that depend on highly abstracted, sweeping models. Examples are astronomical cosmology and origins of the universe, evolutionary biology, climatology (Global Warming being just a specific case), and abiogenesis chemistry. I'm sure there are others.

Two more that are not history-based, but have the same problem of degenerating into political argument slash conspiracy debate, are: psychiatry ("How do you know crazy people aren't just faking it all?") and the principle of health 'risk' assessment and management (ie: define "safe"). The latter is Stossel's favourite niche.

Notice there is overlap, too: some critics of Global Warming actually do believe that it's a) real, and b) anthropogenic, but debate the claims that it's c) serious (risk debate, see above) or d) fixable.

blutoski

13th May 2007, 11:47 AM

New Orleans springs to mind. The loss of a thriving city, but 18 months later it seems pretty much forgotten. I wonder whether it will come to be seen as a warning that was ignored...

Who knows.

Recent press releases are relevant examples here: the claim now is that Global Warming decreases hurricane activity.

* USA Today: Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-04-17-globalwarming-hurricanes_N.htm)

So, as usual, what we'll find is that people will view the New Orleans disaster as they see fit: Example of Global Warming (proof that we need to establish a major government program to protect our collective interests) or Example of Government Incompetence (proof that we need to disband major government programs because they are a risk to our individual interests).

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 03:13 PM

As for the Vikings in Greenland, Eric the Red should have been known as Eric the Promoter. The island wasn't green when he discovered it. He used the term to attract colonists.

Eric the Red didn't discover Greenlan, he fled there - to an established colony - when things became too hot for him in Iceland. He was joined by family and friends - he was an important capo, which is one reason other capos were out for his blood - which has perhaps given rise to this Eric founded the colony. He returned to Iceland once, to see how the land lay, and had to go on the lam again PDQ. This is all documented, of course.

Even so, the island had pasture land that supported livestock. But during the period known as the Little Ice Age, conditions worsened. The Skraelings (Inuit) encroached on the Viking settlements on the western side of the island, but climate change seems to be the best explanation for the disappearance of the final Norse, agriculural settlement on the southeastern coast.

Recent archaeological and historical work indicates that it was inappropriate farming methods that impoverished the soil, which was thin and nutrient-poor - very different from the rich volcanic soils of Iceland (which had drawn the Norse there in the first place). The Greenlanders grazed cattle on them, and burnt cowpats for fuel (no trees, you see). Bad policy. The local climate may well have changed, but if global climate change did for Greenland agriculture why didn't it do for Norwegian agriculture at the same time? The Norwegians, of course, are up to here in trees so they were managing the soil much better.

history is kinda my thing ... :blush: I won't get myself started on the causes of the French Revolution.

Mr Clingford

13th May 2007, 03:26 PM

history is kinda my thing ... :blush: I won't get myself started on the causes of the French Revolution.If it ties in with climate change somehow then feel free :D

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 03:34 PM

The trick is first to recognize that your own belief system filters your prejudices in a highly efficient way.

What on earth does "filtering prejudices" mean?

That would be called skepticism ...

I call it semantically suspect.

... as opposed to the Lucianarchy-style pseudo-skepticism of being skeptical about skepticism of your own position.

I am always particularly sceptical about information that appears to back up my current conclusions. I don't have a belief-system and precious few prejudices. A fair number of postjudices, though, all subject to appeal.

This thread was never on topic in the first place. It had as a proposition that GLOBAL warming was worse than predicted by climate models because climate models did not predict the melting rate of the ARCTIC. This was supposed to be because climate modellers were too conservative.

It had a proposition? It's so long ago now this old head can't recall the OP in detail.

Schneibster

13th May 2007, 03:36 PM

If there was such a positive feedback, we wouldn't exist today. The earth's climate is dominated by negative feedbacks.Of course it is. All homeostatic processes are. The term "positive feedback" is not being used in the way you imply it is here. See, this is the problem with you, Diamond; every piece of evidence you present either turns out not to actually contradict what climate scientists are actually saying, or to be based on obsolete information, or to be plain flat not true. I will demonstrate; this is a case of the first kind. It's commonly referred to as a "straw man," that is, claiming that the opposing argument is something it is not, then disproving what you claim it is, not what it really is. It's generally recognized as a dishonest debating tactic.

The only reason to even discuss positive feedbacks is because the supposed mechanism (carbon dioxide rise) is far too small to cause the observed temperature rise. In the wonderful world of climate modelling, just because a hypothesis doesn't fit the facts is no reason to reject it when there's lots of non-physical fudge-factors to be added. Climate models can give any answer you want - just add assumptions and stir.You have it exactly backwards; in fact, the temperature rise during a transition from a glaciation to an interglacial cannot be accounted for without CO2, and the current temperature rise cannot be either. This is another straw man. In your presentation of the argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premises; but in reality, it does. Again, this is generally recognized as a dishonest debating tactic.

If you can account for the 1/3 of temperature rise during a glaciation-to-interglacial transition that is currently unexplained without CO2, then do so. For that matter, if you can account for the current temperature rise without it, then do so. But given the rest of the content of this post, you'll pardon me if I'm highly skeptical of your ability to do so.

Not to be discussed by AUP on the subject of climate models and carbon dioxide:

- the cooling of Antarctica and the growth of the icesheetsLarsen B ice shelf collapse. Then there's:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060308.html
The satellite evidence is conclusive, not to mention the fact that it's now conclusive about Greenland and, the subject of this thread, the Arctic. I'll be charitable and attribute this to obsolete data.

- the complete lack of any temperature rise in the Southern Hemisphere in the last 30 years despite being freer of "cooling" sulphates than the North.http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/shsea.jpg
Data collection methods: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
Top hit on the google of "southern hemisphere temperature trend." Obsolete data here cannot be a supported conjecture; this data is over a year old. The sources for it go back decades.

- the consistent behavior of carbon dioxide and methane in icecore records to follow temperature rise by centuries and the complete absence of the reverse scenario (where's the positive feedbacks then?)Without CO2, glaciation-to-interglacial transitions (the exact scenario you are referring to here) would take twice as long (10KY vs. the observed 5KY) and the temperature increase would be 1/3 lower. If you can account for this without CO2, do so. You never have so far. You either have a profound misunderstanding of what the icecore data says, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

- the failure of climate models to predict so much as the next El Nino, never mind fifty or a hundred years hence. Even attempts to model 3 months ahead appear to be consistently poor even for just Australia.First, climate is not weather. Second, global warming is not 3 months ahead, it is twenty years ahead. So what you're basically saying is that if my car doesn't need oil tomorrow, it won't need oil in three months.

Third, the comparatively crude models from the 1980s and 1990s appear to have correctly predicted the current global average temperature- which amazingly enough is what they were constructed to do. (<-Sarcasm, for the impaired.) Fourth, all the current models predict the same thing, but the error bars are tighter. See the width of error bars in the most recent IPCC report, and contrast with previous ones.

That'll be enough to go on with, I think.

- the persistent failure of climate models to agree even with each other on regional temperature change and precipitation patterns.Climate is not weather. Climate models aren't made to predict regional temperature change and precipitation patterns over a period of months or a few years. They're made to predict climate over decades and centuries, and the historical record proves that they are accurate in doing so.

- the assumption of exponential growth of carbon dioxide to "drive" a linear increase in temperature - which has never happened.Please source this claim.

- the lack of any significant trend in upper troposphere temperatures despite the clear prediction from Greenhouse theory that the upper troposphere should warm much faster than the surface.Please source this claim.

Instead we're fed cant about the failure of climate models to predict something as apparently simple as Arctic ice cap extent, as a supposed demonstration that climate modellers "are being too conservative" - rather than just wrong. Climate modellers it seems, can never be wrong - just naive in their assumptions; nice work if you can get it.That's right, bury the fact that what it means is that not only is AGW happening, it's happening faster than we thought. And tell us some more about those models- all readers please note that this thread is not about models or predictions. It is about what's happening right now. But pay no attention to the facts; remember, you wouldn't want to be a member of the reality-based community, now would you?

Also we keep up the mantra about something called "climate stabilization" as if climate can be stabilized when its a loosely-coupled non-linear system. But then of course that would lead to a discussion about where the notion of climate stability came from, Hockey Sticks and all, wouldn't it? And that would never do.So basically, what we see is a bunch of arguments about models, when the subject of the thread is data, and where you did make claims based in data, they all turned out to be, to be charitable, incorrect. Basically, you brought a knife to a gunfight. Which is about typical. Now, in classic Diamond driveby style, you'll never show up on this thread again, and never make any response to what I have shown here.

Facts, Diamond. The more we get, the more clear it becomes that you have no answer for them.

INRM

13th May 2007, 03:43 PM

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 04:00 PM

So, as usual, what we'll find is that people will view the New Orleans disaster as they see fit: Example of Global Warming (proof that we need to establish a major government program to protect our collective interests) or Example of Government Incompetence (proof that we need to disband major government programs because they are a risk to our individual interests).

Quite. It's great TV, but it doesn't actually galvanise a nation. 9/11 did. Because it was so personal. So "Us" defining by, for and against "Them".

It's worth considering how much prominence the hurricane issue has. In the big picture it's not terribly significant, and even in US terms it directly affects a small minority of the population, and one of the least prosperous. It serves the purposes of many dubious types (and I don't just mean media-types, dubious by default) to concentrate attention on such a complicated corner of the big picture. Complicated in so many spheres - scientific, social, economic, industrial, racial and LBNL political. Loads of cross-contamination, a sophist's paradise.

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 04:18 PM

I've read that this global warming is caused by sunspot activity and that our entire solar system is warming up. Mars for instance is rapidly losing its CO2 ice.

I think what you'll find, if you follow this idea back through the sources, is that it depends on measurements of dry-ice-cap extent at the southern pole during three Martian winters. The mass of dry-ice can't yet be measured, that may have remained unchanged for all we know. Such measurements are very recent, so we have no way of knowing if this is natural variation or represents a trend. It also tells us nothing about the northern dry-ice-caps, but you'll find that the claim rapidly becomes "ice-caps", plural. The argument goes like this : If the southern cap is receding there must be (Martian) global warming; if there's global warming the northern cap is receding; since both caps are receding there must be (Martian) global warming. Which is so not valid.

I've also read that Greenland was named Greenland because of its dense heavily forested interior. This is a natural phenomena and theres not much we can do about it.

Somebody was having you on, mate. Pulling your plonker. Greenland's had an ice-cap for millions of years.

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 04:23 PM

I didnt' read all 8 pages, but they were off by 30 years.... doesn't that mean that it's too late to do anything? I was told that if we didnt' shape up in 10 years it would be too late, if we're off by 30 years that means we can't do a thing to stop our planet from going out of control heat wise.

I think the ten years incorporates the thirty years, but hey, it's immaterial. Me, I'm gonna crack a beer, light a cigar, kick-back and watch the train-wreck. Nothing to be done about it, and how many do you get to see in a lifetime?

mhaze

13th May 2007, 04:55 PM

Who knows.

Recent press releases are relevant examples here: the claim now is that Global Warming decreases hurricane activity.

* USA Today: Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-04-17-globalwarming-hurricanes_N.htm)

So, as usual, what we'll find is that people will view the New Orleans disaster as they see fit: Example of Global Warming (proof that we need to establish a major government program to protect our collective interests) or Example of Government Incompetence (proof that we need to disband major government programs because they are a risk to our individual interests).

New Orleans was one of my favorite places, and numerous times people who lived there had told me that if they ever got hit by a storm, they were nothing but screwed monkeys. I just can't figure a way to spin that one. And also, I'm going back there to visit.

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 05:05 PM

This thread was never on topic in the first place. It had as a proposition that GLOBAL warming was worse than predicted by climate models because climate models did not predict the melting rate of the ARCTIC. This was supposed to be because climate modellers were too conservative.

On the other hand, those same climate models predict Antarctic warming and ice sheet loss, instead of cooling and ice sheet thickening, which actually happened. Were the climate modellers too liberal?

We could discuss them, but CapelDodgy's filter has obliterated inconvenient truths from his viewpoint.

I'll respond, but whether or not it becomes a discussion is up to you.

Climate models don't predict anything to do with ice-mass. Just to tidy up your post : the Antarctic ice-sheets have all disintegrated or thinned, the Antarctic ice-cap has thickened or at least not shrunk. Climate theory predicts a thickening of the ice-cap because of increased precipitation in a warmer world. Up there - both latitudinally and vertically - all precipitaton is snow, and 0C is a dstant threat. It gets out of there, very eventually, by plastic(?) rather than liquid-flow. Basically, delivery can go up a lot faster than excretion.

Climate isn't affected by the depth of any ice-field, only by its extent. So the climate models don't incorporate the thickness of the Antarctic ice-cap, and therefore do not make the prediction you claim they do. Climate theory - that's mainstream theory - predicts a thickening of the Antarctic and Greenland ice-caps. Certainly not a thinning.

Nobody claims that climate models have any skill in the centre of Antarctica, so they mostly leave it as a constant. They don't predict anything about it. It's a pretty tiny part of the world and interacts very little with the rest of it.

A remarkable thing about the world today is the way the poles are laid out. At one end there's an ocean almost surrounded by continent, at the other is a continent surrounded by ocean. A sort of ying-yang thing. Spooky. Like the way the Moon is just the right distance away to make such a cool eclipse.

Why would you expect the same response to greenhouse warming in these two wildly different environments? Put differently, why have you grasped at the difference as being in some way significant?

mhaze

13th May 2007, 05:14 PM

Careful, Tex. That's sounding reasonable. Get you in big trouble with the GW advocates and opposing heretics.

Government can do a lot through offering incentives, but mandating broadbased emission levels is identical to government controlling production -- an experiment I believe failed in the USSR and other socialistic societies.
Apparently, I erred in my earlier claim to be brief in future posts.

Hey, i tend to antagonize lefties and righties equally. The implicit vision of a working coalition of right wing End-is_Nigh religiosos certain the world is coming to an end, left wing greenies certain that climate change is already here, and various nuclear proponents is so unbelievable, well, it's like they say, "reality is stranger than fiction".

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 05:38 PM

I've been aware for a while of the denialist retreat into the past - epitomised by the Swindlers making up the last twenty years on a graph - and the ageing nature of the protagonists. Now I'm noticing a retreat into the mountain redoubt of central Antactica. The Antarctic coast is already lost to them, of course, the terrain that does interact with the outside world is warming as predicted (within the error-bars).

The last days of Constantinople keep coming to mind ...

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 05:41 PM

Of course it is. All homeostatic processes are.

And they stay that way :) .

varwoche

13th May 2007, 06:30 PM

the Antarctic ice-sheets have all disintegrated or thinned Yup (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html):
This comprehensive study found the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005 ... The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 07:11 PM

Yup (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html):

Succinctness relies on definition. "Ice-sheet" has a definite meaning to me and thee, and the scientific community in general. To Diamond, lack of definition is the only life-line left. He presents himself (I'm pretty convinced of the gender) as a sexy sage when fresh meat presents itself, but in truth he's a cultist.

Discuss. :)

CapelDodger

13th May 2007, 07:33 PM

Facts, Diamond. The more we get, the more clear it becomes that you have no answer for them.

Hey, it's easy for us. Outcomes keep matching our expectations. It hasn't been so easy for Diamond et al. They've had a constant struggle to adjust to outcomes and yet keep the denialist lamp burning. It must have been debilitating and demoralising, and yet Diamond keeps the faith. You could cut him some slack.

If you did, of course, I would never have any respect for you again :mad: . Call me vindictive if you like; you wouldn't be the first nor would you be wrong.

Schneibster

13th May 2007, 07:45 PM

Hey, it's easy for us. Outcomes keep matching our expectations. It hasn't been so easy for Diamond et al. They've had a constant struggle to adjust to outcomes and yet keep the denialist lamp burning. It must have been debilitating and demoralising, and yet Diamond keeps the faith. You could cut him some slack.Naaaaahhhh.

Hmmmmm....

Naaaahhhh. :D

If you did, of course, I would never have any respect for you again :mad: . Call me vindictive if you like; you wouldn't be the first nor would you be wrong.I'd never have any respect for me again. Let Diamond take the first steps. Then we'll see.

a_unique_person

13th May 2007, 08:50 PM

I've read that this global warming is caused by sunspot activity and that our entire solar system is warming up. Mars for instance is rapidly losing its CO2 ice.
I've also read that Greenland was named Greenland because of its dense heavily forested interior. This is a natural phenomena and theres not much we can do about it.

If every planet and moon in the solar system was warming, then I'd think you have a point. If it's only a few, including Mars, I'd look elsewhere.

INRM

13th May 2007, 10:06 PM

So, to whoever responded,

If people managed to cut emissions down within 10 years it would still stave off a runaway effect with climate change?

Jeff Corey

13th May 2007, 10:13 PM

...I've also read that Greenland was named Greenland because of its dense heavily forested interior. This is a natural phenomena and theres not much we can do about it.
Greenland has no forest, just some dwarf trees in the south.

varwoche

13th May 2007, 10:33 PM

the lack of any significant trend in upper troposphere temperatures despite the clear prediction from Greenhouse theory that the upper troposphere should warm much faster than the surface. According to NOAA (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm), the discrepancy has been reconciled, with a caveat:
there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere ... shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system ... The previously reported discrepancy between surface and atmospheric temperature trends is no longer apparent on a global scale. These trends are consistent with climate model simulations.
...
One issue does remain however, and that is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere. However, this greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known.

varwoche

13th May 2007, 10:38 PM

I've read that this global warming is caused by sunspot activity And here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html) is a study that indicates otherwise: Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change ... The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output ... If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate.

Corsair 115

13th May 2007, 11:30 PM

I've read that this global warming is caused by sunspot activity and that our entire solar system is warming up. Mars for instance is rapidly losing its CO2 ice.You may want to read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/) in order to put that claim into a better perspective.

a_unique_person

13th May 2007, 11:38 PM

You may want to read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/) in order to put that claim into a better perspective.

Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called "cherry picking"; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?

QED!

Diamond

14th May 2007, 01:37 AM

I am always particularly sceptical about information that appears to back up my current conclusions. I don't have a belief-system and precious few prejudices.

I can safely say that all of those statements are false.

We all have belief systems and prejudices - its just some of us are aware of them and some are in denial.

Diamond

14th May 2007, 01:41 AM

According to NOAA (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm), the discrepancy has been reconciled, with a caveat:

The caveat is that the predictions of greenhouse theory are not supported by the data.

You might think that it would cause someone to critically re-examine the basis for greenhouse theory - but natch, no chance.

Diamond

14th May 2007, 01:48 AM

Diamond, I'll go with the GW AGW on seeing working predictive models of the future - not modeling of past events, as you have critiqued. There is a concern by skeptics of GW that the understanding of this stuff is imperfect; but simultaneously, there is a concern by those who believe in GW/AGW that waiting for certain evidence is not a wise path. Both points of view seem to have some merit do they not?

If you think that climate models that fail to reproduce the past can tell us anything useful about the future then just acknowledge that it is an irrational religious belief to do so, but you're going to regardless.

I don't.

What are the implications of "solving GW" in terms of "what we must do"? Some would "solve GW" by basically, trying to exert controls which effectively, makes everyone miserable. What evidence is there that a social program approach to "solving GW" would be any more successful than the "War on Drugs".

What's there to solve? Climate has always changed, and on all timescales. Warming periods have been beneficial to man and to the biosphere generally in the past, so why is warming such a problem that it needs to be "solved"?

The cure to the disease may be worse than the illness. As one who worked in mental hospitals in the era when nyphomanics and homosexuals were diagnoses of mental disorders requiring confinement, when shock therapy was the scientific way to treat many mental illnesses, I am skeptical of both supposed diseases and supposed cures.

And we're talking about the health of the whole planet here....

What we have in climate science is a failed political philosophy from the past (Marxism) finding a new outlet to cause mass poverty and environmental destruction - just like last time.

a_unique_person

14th May 2007, 04:56 AM

What's there to solve? Climate has always changed, and on all timescales. Warming periods have been beneficial to man and to the biosphere generally in the past, so why is warming such a problem that it needs to be "solved"?

Climate has always change for a reason. We can study why it is changing now, and the reason is the increase in CO2.

People die, and they always have, but they always die for a reason.

Diamond

14th May 2007, 05:48 AM

Climate has always change for a reason. We can study why it is changing now, and the reason is the increase in CO2.

Climate is a non-linear system, and as such can change without an external cause. In order to ascertain what the factors which influence climate change may be, we need to properly investigate the past influences on climate change. In other words, climate doesn't necessarily need a reason to change.

Unfortunately if we believe in reconstructions of past climate change which are false, we will infer wrong causes to climate change of the present and near future.

Carbon dioxide rise has never preceded temperature rise in the past. It has also been much higher during cold periods and lower during warm periods, so what we're seeing now may well be a temporary spurious correlation between the two. Even over the course of the 20th Century carbon dioxide has risen strongly during a period of cooling even though the supposed effect should have been immediate.

To say that carbon dioxide rise causes temperature rise in the Earth's atmosphere is to go against a massive body of knowledge on past climate where the two are linked only in the opposite sense.

The lack of evidence for such a linkage is even in the link you posted - why persist ignoring it?

a_unique_person

14th May 2007, 07:02 AM

Climate is a chaotic system, but it exists within constraints. Each year, the seasons follow one after the other.

mhaze

14th May 2007, 09:01 AM

If you think that climate models that fail to reproduce the past can tell us anything useful about the future then just acknowledge that it is an irrational religious belief to do so, but you're going to regardless.

I don't.

What's there to solve? Climate has always changed, and on all timescales. Warming periods have been beneficial to man and to the biosphere generally in the past, so why is warming such a problem that it needs to be "solved"?

What we have in climate science is a failed political philosophy from the past (Marxism) finding a new outlet to cause mass poverty and environmental destruction - just like last time.

Yep. Scarily we view that one.

But would you allie with a movement for 100 nuclear plants with an avowed goal of "solving global warming" that did not have a control-the-individual misery component?

CapelDodger

14th May 2007, 04:04 PM

Carbon dioxide rise has never preceded temperature rise in the past.

Assuming you mean the recent geological past, CO2 increase has never increased markedly - by almost a third now - independently of climate change. So your point is spurious. There is no example in history of what is currently occurring, so it can tell us little. What it can tell us has to be teased out of data from different, but relevant, scenarios. Such as Milankovich warming/cooling, and the role CO2 plays in that process.

To say that carbon dioxide rise causes temperature rise in the Earth's atmosphere is to go against a massive body of knowledge on past climate where the two are linked only in the opposite sense.

Once again spurious, since the historical CO2 increase was caused by warming. So this body of evidence is about something else entirely. In its midst is the evidence that CO2 increase exerts a positive feedback on Milankovich warming. As one would expect from the well-established physics of the greenhouse effect.

CapelDodger

14th May 2007, 04:14 PM

What we have in climate science is a failed political philosophy from the past (Marxism) finding a new outlet to cause mass poverty and environmental destruction - just like last time.
Oh my.

This may not be obvious to you, but you're coming from a very unusual place. I think I'd get wide backing for that opinion. Wow.

Nicely expressed. Bold, bald, and to the point.

CapelDodger

14th May 2007, 04:54 PM

Let Diamond take the first steps. Then we'll see.

He's taken a pretty stark position. It's the commies. I mean, there's rooted in the past, and then there's fossilised.

I reckon there's a small population out there who lost something when the Soviet Union collapsed. Climate science appears to have become a surrogate for a few. Go figure.

This Marxist Plan B seems to be faring a lot better than Plan A. Perhaps they just closed down the Soviet Union thing when the new scheme was well entrenched, having subverted first climate science and through them the entire scientific community. (Varwoche, perhaps a link to one of your esteemed Lists? :) ) And Al Gore (hiss) fully wound and ready to go. Better dressed than Stalin, but is there any other difference? Hm?

Of course, it would have to be pure luck that Plan B coincided with an actual warming period the like of which has never been seen before. (Diamond might disagree with me on that.) Unless the Marxists knew it was coming, which would require a dependable means of predicting climate change. A bit of a no-no for Diamond.

The science and evidence seem to be holding up. Diamond is still back with the satellite discrepancies; how long ago was that? Years ago, anyway. Leave him the past and central Antarctica, we can clean up on the rest.

Harpoon

14th May 2007, 09:02 PM

Eric the Red didn't discover Greenland, he fled there - to an established colony... he was an important capo, which is one reason other capos were out for his blood - which has perhaps given rise to this Eric founded the colony....

In the late '80s a friend gave me a novel -- "The Greenlanders," by Jane Smiley. Ms. Smiley set her fictional story at the end of the Norse period in Greenland. As a school boy I had been taught simply that Eric the Red founded Greenland and his son Leif discovered Vinland. Ms. Smiley's book opened my eyes to the greater story of the culture and gave me somewhat of a passing interest.

My error indeed in saying Eric discovered Greenland. I know better. But in my understanding, Eric and other Icelanders only knew tales of a land mass to the West. I find your comment that a Norse colony existed on the island prior to Eric's first visit fancinating. Can you say more? Or would that be too off the subject?

Recent archaeological and historical work indicates that it was inappropriate farming methods that impoverished the soil... The local climate may well have changed, but if global climate change did for Greenland agriculture why didn't it do for Norwegian agriculture at the same time?

Better farming methods certainly could have benefited the Greenlanders, but increasingly severe winters and shorter summers would baffle even the greenest of thumbs. Was Greenland's lower temperature a regional phenomenom? Proponents of the Medeival Warming Period with its more pacific Atlantic, and the following Little Ice Age with its stormy, ice-clogged seas believe the effects were at minimum hemispheric, but possibly global. If that's the case, there should have been a negative effect on all northern European agriculture. What do you know to the contrary?

... I won't get myself started on the causes of the French Revolution.

We'd all have to take off our shoes and socks to count those. But the cereal shortage certainly led to the serial violence.

Schneibster

14th May 2007, 10:27 PM

Not one single fact.

That's what I thought, Diamond.

varwoche

15th May 2007, 12:45 AM

He's taken a pretty stark position. It's the commies. ... (Varwoche, perhaps a link to one of your esteemed Lists? :) ) Once expert scientists are dismissed as a communist cabal, I'm afraid we're in a realm that is so bizarrely disconnected from reality that evidence is pointless. It figures though that a Rasputin adherent (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2002961#post2002961) would be so anti-commie. ;)

Corsair 115

15th May 2007, 01:57 AM

You might think that it would cause someone to critically re-examine the basis for greenhouse theory - but natch, no chance.If so, then why do you think all those climatologists and scientists aren't doing that? What's your explanation?

Belz...

15th May 2007, 10:03 AM

Rolfe

15th May 2007, 11:00 AM

I've met Diamond, and he seems like a nice guy. During the months I was away from the forum, every time there was another more definitive news item on climate change, I was tempted to slip back just to see if he'd caught on yet.

Oh well.

Rolfe.

Belz...

15th May 2007, 01:04 PM

Well that bit about marxism is kinda weird.

CapelDodger

15th May 2007, 03:56 PM

I find your comment that a Norse colony existed on the island prior to Eric's first visit fascinating. Can you say more? Or would that be too off the subject?

I have a chit from Mr Clingford that gives me leave :) .

To get a good impression of the region you really have to use a globe. The omnipresent Mercator projection gives a very false impression of the distances involved. The world is pretty damn small up there, and Greenland is just one storm-tossed day away running before the wind. The Icelanders first went there for walrus ivory; in fact, that was the colony's raison d'etre. The African supply of ivory to Europe was cut off by the emergence of Islam, but the demand was still there. Walrus-ivory satisfied it, with disastrous consequences for walrus populations. As each population went extinct - which happened horribly quickly - the hunters sought out new ones. Ending up at Greenland.

In the 15thCE the African supply of ivory was opening up again, as the Portuguese ventured into West Africa. Greenland lost its purpose. I mean, look at it, it's definitively dismal.

The guy credited with the discovery of Vinland is one Bjarni Herjolfsson, who was blown close enough to spot its wonderful trees - something lacking in Greenland and Iceland. Big trees. House- and ship-building trees. Trees that could undercut those chiselling Norwegians on the Icelandic markets. A great business plan, but it didn't pan out; not enough capital, and the Baltic started spewing timber from Swedish and Polish sources (loosely speaking).

Was Greenland's lower temperature a regional phenomenom? Proponents of the Medeival Warming Period with its more pacific Atlantic, and the following Little Ice Age with its stormy, ice-clogged seas believe the effects were at minimum hemispheric, but possibly global. If that's the case, there should have been a negative effect on all northern European agriculture. What do you know to the contrary?

There was a shift in North Atlantic climate towards colder conditions after about 1300CE. European historians came up with the Little Ice Age concept in the early 20thCE to better understand European history, and rightly so, IMO. But it is a European concept, deriving from European experience.

To my mind, the evidence points to disruptions in the North Atlantic involving influxes of Arctic water - and sea-ice. Not a global event. There may have been an exacerbating solar forcing, if the sunspot theory is correct, which would be the source of the very weak LIA signal in the wider world.

But the cereal shortage certainly led to the serial violence.

:boxedin:

(They ran out of baskets).

CapelDodger

15th May 2007, 05:01 PM

A relevant post on RealClimate

Hansen’s 1988 projections

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

The upshot being that modelling has moved on over the last two decades, but it was still pretty good back then. Hansen's "B" projection has fared rather better than Adams's "B" Ark :) .

Climate modelling is establishing a track-history.

CapelDodger

15th May 2007, 05:56 PM

Well that bit about marxism is kinda weird.

Were it true, the foundations of my world-view would be seriously rattled.

How did I miss it? As it happens, I studied at UEA from '73 to '76 . The heart of the beast, the very hub of Marxist Plan B. Computer science, not climate, but geeks on campus are gonna mingle. We used to rap about modelling - computer/climate overlap - but it was science-fiction in those days. There's more flops and memory in a mobile frickin' phone now than there was in the entire world back then.

There were Trotskyists aplenty, chaff to confuse the radar, but I had friends in the CP and I'm sure they weren't in on Plan B either.

All the Marxists were dismissive of environmentalism. Also dismissive of sexism and racism, diversions thrown up by the bourgeoisie, doncha know; solve the political problem and everything else will fall into place. :rolleyes: . It was all philosophy, no substance. Was I only seeing the froth while deep-core Marxists were germinating their astonishing project under my very nose? Frankly, no. Been there, saw it, not an idiot, and it didn't happen.

Schneibster

15th May 2007, 08:09 PM

Honestly, AGW is a conspiracy?

I'd say if AGW is a conspiracy, so's the tide.

mhaze

15th May 2007, 08:26 PM

I have derived a definitive proof (http://www.leenks.com/link47944.htm) of global warming...

Belz...

16th May 2007, 05:24 AM

Gravity's a conspiracy, too.

a_unique_person

16th May 2007, 06:21 AM

How else do you explain that rate of fall of those towers? :rolleyes:

Belz...

16th May 2007, 10:15 AM

Gravity's in on it.

Harpoon

16th May 2007, 12:29 PM

Czech President Vaclav Klaus doesn't believe global warming is human caused (Prague Daily Monitor, 3 May 2007).

He's a former professional economist and gave a lecture on May 2 at the University of Economics in Prague. He claims recent analyses of the climate changes' impact on society overestimate the risks and economists should not let natural scientists "break into" their field.

He notes that a number of scientists draw far-reaching judgements on economic issues although they have no expertise in the field.

"I am fully convinced that the contribution of economics (as part of the debate on climate) is irreplaceable," he said.

Klaus has been quoted in other news reports as saying that those who had lived under Communism and experienced state economic controls, have a far different understanding of the impact of global warming mediation than people who have lived in free-market societies.

Communism has been replaced by "ambitious environmentalism" as the greatest threat to liberty on the planet, has become his mantra.

Several climatologists have noted that Klaus is ignoring the scientific evidence, which he freely admits.

Seems to be similar differences of opinion here.

I would think avowed skeptics, no matter how convinced they are that human activity must be reformed, would lack confidence in the ability of world governments to administer those needed reforms.

People who doubt the computer models and supporting hard data or who reject that the phenomenon is human caused, or that we can stop or reverse the warming trend, must at least accept that the momentum in the Halls of Power is tending toward GW advocacy.

The causes, effects, duration and level of global warming may still be open to debate. But there should be no debate that governments are under increasing pressure to act.

Whatever measures eventually are proposed must be fully examined for effectiveness and even-handedness. Don't expect altruism from any of our officials.

We already see the amount of corporate money being spent to downplay GW and/or its effects, and advocacy groups are shelling out as much to create GW hysteria.

Klaus is blind to the science because he's seen how aparatchiks distort scientific findings for their political ends.

The IPCC report suggests the effects of GW will lead to more human strife. But won't instituting the necessary changes also lead to as much or more human conflict?

People in developed nations will balk at giving up their creature comforts, while people living in economically depressed areas will call any proposed controls on C02 emissions further examples of resurgent colonialism.

Science and economics are diametrically opposed on this issue and will never achieve consensus.

More public information and free-market pressure for change are superior to governmental mandate. But either system suffers from human avarice, factionalism and incompetence.

Still, with all its flaws, I prefer the former. If only market changes moved more quickly.

Belz...

16th May 2007, 01:03 PM

Communism has been replaced by "ambitious environmentalism" as the greatest threat to liberty on the planet, has become his mantra.

Sounds like sheer lunacy, to me. How, exactly, is it a threat to anything ?

Seems to me like a lack of environment would be quite a threat, instead.

Schneibster

16th May 2007, 01:03 PM

varwoche

16th May 2007, 01:13 PM

Czech President Vaclav Klaus doesn't believe global warming is human caused (Prague Daily Monitor, 3 May 2007).

He's a former professional economist and gave a lecture on May 2 at the University of Economics in Prague. Other than potential for idle amusement, there's no reason to read past this point.

Several climatologists have noted that Klaus is ignoring the scientific evidence, which he freely admits. Bingo! Amusement payoff. ;)

CapelDodger

16th May 2007, 05:02 PM

If we're going to talk about economics and environmentalism, let's talk about ozone depletion, the Montreal Protocol, and the economic disasters predicted from that that never happened. Seems like everything just kept on keepin' on, and the ozone problem is well on its way to being solved. So you'll pardon me if I view predictions of economic disaster from CO2 mitigation with a certain degree of... well... skepticism. ;)

It was the same thing with acid-rain. Reduction of sulphur emissions would collapse the economy, cost up to three billion jobs, and we'd all be living in caves. Besides which (of course) there was no acid rain, and it wasn't caused by sulphur emissions anyway, not to mention that rampant forest die-back happens all the time. It's deja vu all over again.

I have an excellent book, Roads to Ruin by E. S. Turner, which covers the dire forecasts made by vested interests before various social advances - such as banning child labour down British mines, which was most certainly the Road to Industrial Ruin, End of Empire, and Triumph of the French. Turner was a journalist/writer rather than an historian, but it's well-researched and a pleasure to read. Probably out of print; first published in 1950, my Penguin paperback copy is priced at six shillings. Bought at a boot-sale for twenty pence, which is only four shillings in old money. I couldn't refuse a bargain like that.

Always the same cast-iron arguments as to why it'll cost gazillions while Johnnie Foreigner undercuts our industry by not observing such niceties. Besides which, it's misguided anyway.

CapelDodger

16th May 2007, 05:15 PM

Other than potential for idle amusement, there's no reason to read past this point.

Bingo! Amusement payoff. ;)

:D

First against the wall? Frickin' intellectuals. Before you ask, I know what you mean about lawyers, but the awful truth is that we're going to need some of them. And the ones we don't need we can designate as intellectuals or as in some way associated with hip-hop (the next-up category).

I am so looking forward to the blossoming of our intrigue. The Nuclear Winter of my discontent will be made global summer ...

CapelDodger

16th May 2007, 05:49 PM

Czech President Vaclav Klaus doesn't believe global warming is human caused (Prague Daily Monitor, 3 May 2007).

On a historical note, the Czech Republic encompasses the central industrial region of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It has a very long industrial and mining history (many centuries) which necessarily influences the culture. It has an engineer's mind-set, which will be reflected in the Economics orthodoxy. I reckon Klaus regards AGW as something equivalent to the oil-shocks of the 70's. Something to be engineered around, as everything else has been up to now.

To my mind global warming is on a completely different scale. But I'm a big-picture type myself, which Klaus is clearly not; perhaps a result of my cultural heritage. An island with an expansive history is pretty much the opposite of Bohemia.

Harpoon

16th May 2007, 06:54 PM

Gospodine Klaus is permanently scarred (or do I really mean scared) by totalitarianism. Any suggestion of the slightest intervention in Czech affairs, ecologically or especially economically, prejudices anything he hears.

I'm somewhat of a paranoid type myself. I've expected to hear jackboots outside my door for several decades, so I sympathize with his interpretation of the possible direction of events.

But then... I'm not trying to sway half of Europe to my way of denying credible theories.

While the "about to happen" crowd is deadlocked with the "never happen" cartel, any chance we could get a few gagillian euros, pounds, rubles and greenbacks poured into this research as if our lives depended on it?

GW is still theoretical. But "theory" doesn't mean "not factual." It means it hasn't been proven, and then proven again by independent sources.

And GW scares the beegezuse out of me. I know it's the guilt for all those gum wrappers I've tossed into the environment over the eons. Deep down I expect punishment for my sins. AND OUT-OF-CONTROL GLOBAL WARMING WOULD BE PUNISHMENT, BIG TIME.

Did I mention I'm the paranoid type?

You know something else that scares the beegezuse out of me. It's still global warming.

But what if it isn't human caused? What if it is being caused by something else we can't do anything about?

That means instead of being always in control humans, we'll have to adapt to the change.

Hey, I may not be quite ready to give up my 13-year-old gas-guzzler and have limited electrical power during the day.

But I'm willing to be taxed sideways from Sunday on all my energy use if the money is put into a "Manhatten" Project on Global Warming.

I want irrefutable proof one way or the other so I can either shoot my Dodge through the block. Or trade it for a good boat.

mhaze

16th May 2007, 07:13 PM

But I'm willing to be taxed sideways from Sunday on all my energy use if the money is put into a "Manhatten" Project on Global Warming.

I want irrefutable proof one way or the other so I can either shoot my Dodge through the block. Or trade it for a good boat.

But take the contrary side, Harpoon. Consider this. They - people working a political power platform based on this issue - give you promises and take your money. Later they've secured their power base, increased the taxes, continued and improved on the fear factors.

And that's not even about the "issue". It's about the same old power game of politics. The same old sociopaths trying to take control, one hot button issue or another. So you bet your money, and then,

you never know if you bet right, do you?

a_unique_person

16th May 2007, 07:23 PM

You think it's only one side.

Consider this. They - people working a political power platform based on this issue - give you promises and take your money. Later they've secured their power base, made their profits, continued and improved on the fear factors.

That's not even about the "issue". It's about the same old power game of profits. The same old sociopaths trying to make money, one hot button issue or another. So you bet your money, and then....

Harpoon

16th May 2007, 08:25 PM

Thanks, mhaze. Something else to scare the begeezus out of me.

varwoche

16th May 2007, 08:49 PM

GW is still theoretical. But "theory" doesn't mean "not factual." It means it hasn't been proven, and then proven again by independent sources. True. By he same token, it's not proven that the "face" on Mars is a natural geographic feature.

mhaze

16th May 2007, 08:58 PM

Thanks, mhaze. Something else to scare the begeezus out of me.

Yeah, actually that is my point. That politicians (you can pick your party, they will all be at the feeding trough on this one) could (1) if the GW is false, take your money and freedoms and keep the scare going for decades (2) if the GW is true, really, really screw up the fixing of it or (more likely) make it worse.

We are not taking engineers and scientists having been given free rein to figure out how to get to the moon, just do it. Quite the reverse. Politicians in control and committee decision making. Recipes for failure

At that feeding trough with the GW label there may be a few clear sighted men with vision, but by and large we are looking at the same old caliber of thugs and gangsters, like those running Africa and the middle east.

By and large, we've usually stumbled through. But that's the developed and civilized western world. Other nations for various reasons have a long history of stumbling to failure, and are not going to change on this one.

Harpoon

16th May 2007, 09:10 PM

But take the contrary side, Harpoon. Consider this. They - people working a political power platform based on this issue - give you promises and take your money. Later they've secured their power base, increased the taxes, continued and improved on the fear factors.

And that's not even about the "issue". It's about the same old power game of politics. The same old sociopaths trying to take control, one hot button issue or another. So you bet your money, and then, you never know if you bet right, do you?

That's where Klaus the Denier is coming from. I think he sees a lot of similarity in the politics of class struggle and politics of climate change.

Is there really a great emphasis on climate study now? I know we spend a moderate fortune. But isn't the vast majority of resources allocated to weather prediction.

Deniers say they need proof. Advocates say it's gospel truth. Isn't there enough reason to be concerned to warrant a huge increase in research and funding.

And certainly the usual official vices will have to be dealt with. What they don't steal they waste, sort to speak.

More science is one acceptable course. The market is providing some answers. Carbon dioxide can be recylced, and any business using the technology could receive some reasonable inducement.

More efficient energy use eventually becomes more economical use while not impacting the planet. We can make changes that don't shut down whole industries or force economic upheaval while more research is developed.

And I don't mean developed at today's pace. I mean accelerated, as I wrote before, "as if our lives depended on it."

mhaze

16th May 2007, 10:48 PM

That's where Klaus the Denier is coming from. I think he sees a lot of similarity in the politics of class struggle and politics of climate change.

Is there really a great emphasis on climate study now? I know we spend a moderate fortune. But isn't the vast majority of resources allocated to weather prediction.

Deniers say they need proof. Advocates say it's gospel truth. Isn't there enough reason to be concerned to warrant a huge increase in research and funding.

And certainly the usual official vices will have to be dealt with. What they don't steal they waste, sort to speak.

More science is one acceptable course. The market is providing some answers. Carbon dioxide can be recylced, and any business using the technology could receive some reasonable inducement.

More efficient energy use eventually becomes more economical use while not impacting the planet. We can make changes that don't shut down whole industries or force economic upheaval while more research is developed.

And I don't mean developed at today's pace. I mean accelerated, as I wrote before, "as if our lives depended on it."

There are a number of curiosities, though. The USA is doing very well if that is measured by carbon emission per buck of production. But we've got so much GNP that when you measure per person, we are supposed....to feel guilty and fix our problem. And emerging nations "have a right" to become rich too, so they need to be cut some slack and be allowed to pollute. The carbon credit schemes are insane economics, particularly when they are traded internationally - they are basically under the surface a wealth transfer channel.

Proposed "solutions" typically seem to be to raise taxes on utilities. Must be a lot of people in government positions around the world drooling in glee at those prospects. Funny thing, though.....for a "carbon footprint" taken away from a citizen by way of higher taxation there should be an increased "carbon footprint" by the government agency that just grew fatter from those dollars it took in. I'm afraid this may turn out to be a classical case of failure when the government meddles in free enterprise. Hence these discussions, one might say...

a_unique_person

17th May 2007, 04:32 AM

Yeah, actually that is my point. That politicians (you can pick your party, they will all be at the feeding trough on this one) could (1) if the GW is false, take your money and freedoms and keep the scare going for decades (2) if the GW is true, really, really screw up the fixing of it or (more likely) make it worse.

We are not taking engineers and scientists having been given free rein to figure out how to get to the moon, just do it. Quite the reverse. Politicians in control and committee decision making. Recipes for failure

At that feeding trough with the GW label there may be a few clear sighted men with vision, but by and large we are looking at the same old caliber of thugs and gangsters, like those running Africa and the middle east.

By and large, we've usually stumbled through. But that's the developed and civilized western world. Other nations for various reasons have a long history of stumbling to failure, and are not going to change on this one.

It wasn't politicians who discovered AGW. The effective political interference in the IPCC these days is the politicians from countries like China and the USA watering down it's findings. I get the impression it would be much more alarming if the scientists were left to say exactly what they think is happening and is going to happen.

Harpoon

17th May 2007, 08:16 AM

I've never read complaints about waste, theft or patronage at the Manhatten Project (MP). It was unique, not just in its level of secrecy, but its unlimited budget, efficiency and leap of knowledge.

Several years back, I suggested in a letter to the editor (LTE) in a science journal, an MP-level project to seek breakthroughs in super conductivity.

I proposed that a satellite array made of cheap materials, such as PVC piping, could be in deep orbit and support solar cells catching all that free, clean energy passing us by. With superconductivity solved, that collected energy could be converted to microwave and beamed to earth stations, where it could be converted to AC power, or with more advance technology, directly received by vehicles or whatever required electricity.

The following month, several published answers to my LTE noted my idea was a pipe dream. Huge, moon-sized even, collecting platforms to be built in deep orbit -- technologically possible. But the dream of reasonable-temperature super conductivity was just a dream and was impossible according to the laws of physics.

In my follow-up LTE, I suggested achieving the required temperature near absolute zero was not an obstacle in space, and that any loss to conductivity could be overcome by the volume of solar energy collected. It wasn't published and certainly left the erg loss in the microwave-AC conversion unanswered.

An LTE in answer to mine noted another MP effort would be possible, but only under similarly perceived duress as WWII.

The horrific GW claims, with supporting theory and data, I would hope would reach that level of duress.

Instead of the secrecy of the WWII MP, a GW MP would be the opposite -- open to scrutiny. Hopefully, we could keep the self-enrichment of any participants to a minimum.

I would think shifting the effort from seeking mediation to seeking a world-wide research effort would be more productive and successful. Possibly many who are opposed to draconian regulation, would accept more science.

But that's okay. I'm used to being the only person right. Hell isn't it?

Cuddles

17th May 2007, 08:26 AM

I've never read complaints about waste, theft or patronage at the Manhatten Project (MP). It was unique, not just in its level of secrecy, but its unlimited budget, efficiency and leap of knowledge.

I suggest you read up a bit on the Manhatten Project before making statements like this. Feynman's books are good start. The Manhatten Project was like any other research project, and more to the point like any secret research project. Yes, it was big and yes, it found new things, but it was certainly not unique and was in no way efficient. As with all secret things, not only did the right hand not know what the left was doing, but a lot of the time it didn't even know that there was a left hand.

Efficiency? No. Budget? Look at the Apollo program. Leap of knowledge? When it comes down to it, they didn't really discover much at all. The Manhatten Project was about the technology to do something that was known to be possible, not actually discovering anything.

Cuddles

17th May 2007, 08:28 AM

I proposed that a satellite array made of cheap materials, such as PVC piping, could be in deep orbit and support solar cells catching all that free, clean energy passing us by. With superconductivity solved, that collected energy could be converted to microwave and beamed to earth stations, where it could be converted to AC power, or with more advance technology, directly received by vehicles or whatever required electricity.

The following month, several published answers to my LTE noted my idea was a pipe dream. Huge, moon-sized even, collecting platforms to be built in deep orbit -- technologically possible. But the dream of reasonable-temperature super conductivity was just a dream and was impossible according to the laws of physics.

In my follow-up LTE, I suggested achieving the required temperature near absolute zero was not an obstacle in space, and that any loss to conductivity could be overcome by the volume of solar energy collected. It wasn't published and certainly left the erg loss in the microwave-AC conversion unanswered.

Do you have references for this?

Belz...

17th May 2007, 10:03 AM

But that's okay. I'm used to being the only person right. Hell isn't it?

A skeptic would find it very suspicious if he believed he was the only person right. Doesn't it seem odd ? If I were in those shoes, I'd start thinking that maybe I was instead the only person wrong.

Harpoon

17th May 2007, 04:30 PM

I suggest you read up a bit on the Manhatten Project before making statements like this. Feynman's books are good start. The Manhatten Project was like any other research project, and more to the point like any secret research project. Yes, it was big and yes, it found new things, but it was certainly not unique and was in no way efficient. As with all secret things, not only did the right hand not know what the left was doing, but a lot of the time it didn't even know that there was a left hand.

Efficiency? No. Budget? Look at the Apollo program. Leap of knowledge? When it comes down to it, they didn't really discover much at all. The Manhatten Project was about the technology to do something that was known to be possible, not actually discovering anything.
Cuddles, I apologize for any exagerations, generalizations or errors of fact I may have committed. When I noted I hadn't read any complaints, I didn't presume to infer there wasn't criticism aplenty. But reputation of the project is such, it's often cited as an example of what can be accomplished if given priority.

Worse yet, my lack of clarity may have obscurred my point.

Or at least You didn't address it.
Does that mean you agree with me that scientific study about climate change should be greatly increased?

Also, you ask for citations.

The Desert Research Institute (DRI) on the campus of the University of Nevada-Reno, published a quarterly magazine in the early 1980s.

I had returned to grad school after a decade-long hiatus. I believe the idea of the solar-cell array was developed late one Friday afternoon at a student beer bar.

The individuals sharing my pitcher disputed the technological possibility of it. We decided to propose the project to the "geeks" at DRI.

DRI was a tidy collection of eggheads. The only reason to read their black-and-white journal, however, was the letters to the editor pages, as the rest was pap about the school and accompishments of the faculty.

Quite frankly, I don't even know the name of it. We just called it the DRI magazine.

I never supposed someone would ask me to reference my scolding. The only reason I mentioned the exchange, was because of the other letter writer's estimate that the threat needed to galvanize that Marshal Plan kind of commitment would have to equal the dred felt during WWII.

And Belz, I'll refrain from self-effacing humor.

Yahzi

17th May 2007, 05:25 PM

Rolfe.
Rolfe! You're back!

:)

Yahzi

17th May 2007, 05:29 PM

Do you have references for this?
I've heard of that scheme before.

Of course, it involves overlooking the fact that you're bathing whole sections of the planet in microwaves...

a_unique_person

17th May 2007, 07:07 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported Thursday.
Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming.
The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.
"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."
The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming.
The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s.

Scientists wrong again. Once again, underestimating the severity of the problem.

Harpoon

17th May 2007, 08:03 PM

Have you heard the news reports being circulated about northern forests adding significantly to global warming? No?
The stories quote a Lawrence Livermore Lab study presented in April to the National Academy of Sciences.
Here's an abstract from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 17, Vol. 104, No. 16). A link to the full entry follows. Below that is a link to a Lawrence Livermore release about the study in December 2005

Deforestation releases CO2 to the atmosphere, which exerts a warming influence on Earth's climate. However, biophysical effects of deforestation, which include changes in land surface albedo, evapotranspiration, and cloud cover also affect climate. Here we present results from several large-scale deforestation experiments performed with a three-dimensional coupled global carbon-cycle and climate model. These simulations were performed by using a fully three-dimensional model representing physical and biogeochemical interactions among land, atmosphere, and ocean. We find that global-scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth's climate, because the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and evapotranspiration. Latitude-specific deforestation experiments indicate that afforestation projects in the tropics would be clearly beneficial in mitigating global-scale warming, but would be counterproductive if implemented at high latitudes and would offer only marginal benefits in temperate regions. Although these results question the efficacy of mid- and high-latitude afforestation projects for climate mitigation, forests remain environmentally valuable resources for many reasons unrelated to climate.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/16/6550
http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-12-04.html

Corsair 115

17th May 2007, 08:46 PM

I've heard of that scheme before.The idea of using large space-based solar panel platforms to collect the sun's energy and beam it back to Earth goes back to Professor Gerard K. O'Neill. He first proposed the idea back in the mid-1970s in the wake of the 1973 Energy Crisis. It was touted as both a way to get the U.S. off of its reliance on fossil fuels for energy and to open up space to commercial development and eventual permanent habitation.

You can read more about the man, his ideas, and proposals, here (http://www.ssi.org/).

Harpoon

17th May 2007, 09:35 PM

Corsair 115: I read the article by Dr. O'Neill. Thanks for the link.

Using the moon for the solar panel base and the moon's resources (silicone and oxygen) to produce the solar panels is as logical today as it was when written.

A project such as his could be accomplished by the developed nations without world unanimity.

His article jogged my memory. Alas the only jogging I do.

Here's the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs from Asimov's 1956 short story, "The Final Question."

"For decades, Multivac had helped design the ships and plot the trajectories that enabled man to reach the Moon, Mars, and Venus, but past that, Earth's poor resources could not support the ships. Too much energy was needed for the long trips. Earth exploited its coal and uranium with increasing efficiency, but there was only so much of both.

"But slowly Multivac learned enough to answer deeper questions more fundamentally, and on May 14, 2061, what had been theory, became fact.

"The energy of the sun was stored, converted, and utilized directly on a planet-wide scale. All Earth turned off its burning coal, its fissioning uranium, and flipped the switch that connected all of it to a small station, one mile in diameter, circling the Earth at half the distance of the Moon.

All Earth ran by invisible beams of sunpower."

Here's the whole story for any of you who wish to read it again, or have yet to have the pleasure. Asimov deemed it his best and favorite.
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Corsair 115

17th May 2007, 10:28 PM

Corsair 115: I read the article by Dr. O'Neill. Thanks for the link.

Using the moon for the solar panel base and the moon's resources (silicone and oxygen) to produce the solar panels is as logical today as it was when written.I first came across O'Neill's writings when I was a youngster. I became a convert to his visions for the development and settlement of space, though I'm not sold on his idea for space-based solar power.

I do think there is still much humanity could do to produce clean energy here on Earth, but what is lacking is the political will to make it a priority. An Apollo Program for energy efficiency and alternative energy development and implementation would be a very useful thing in my opinion.

Schneibster

18th May 2007, 12:22 AM

Have you heard the news reports being circulated about northern forests adding significantly to global warming? No?
No, and you haven't presented any here, either.

Deforestation releases CO2 to the atmosphere, which exerts a warming influence on Earth's climate. However, biophysical effects of deforestation, which include changes in land surface albedo, evapotranspiration, and cloud cover also affect climate. Here we present results from several large-scale deforestation experiments performed with a three-dimensional coupled global carbon-cycle and climate model. These simulations were performed by using a fully three-dimensional model representing physical and biogeochemical interactions among land, atmosphere, and ocean. We find that global-scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth's climate, because the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and evapotranspiration. Latitude-specific deforestation experiments indicate that afforestation projects in the tropics would be clearly beneficial in mitigating global-scale warming, but would be counterproductive if implemented at high latitudes and would offer only marginal benefits in temperate regions. Please read that again.

Harpoon

18th May 2007, 02:53 AM

The hateful ticker across the bottom of the evening news said something to the effect that "study shows forests causing global warming."
Whaaa?
So I surveyed Google news. Off the top of the list was the Dec. 5, 2005 press release from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (a link I included in my post).
The next was a "news story" about the presentation by LLNL to the National Academy of Science. It was posted on an "environmental" website operated by the Heartland Institute -- not exactly an outfit I trust for balanced environmental news, since I don't smoke anymore.
There were several more articles listed on other conservative sites which appeared to be more of the same. I preferred to go to the Proceedings of the National Academy Science webpage, clicked on the April 17 archive, copied and posted the abstract and included the link to the full report.
I believe I fully cited the source material and made it available for scrutiny.
The "news stories," of which there were several -- and one will likely come your way -- took the information that "afforestation implemented at high latitudes would be counterproductive," and made headlines that said northern forests are causing global warming.
In American, students who gravitate toward the journalism programs do so to avoid science and math classes. And it shows in much of the general media science reporting.
I included the actual report, and since my reading comprehension is adequate to most tasks, I see no need to re-read the abstract.
And if you missed the news cycle, try 'northern forests' at Goggle news. Pick your choose. I went to PNAS quickly, but the list of slanted stories appeared lengthy.

Belz...

18th May 2007, 05:36 AM

And Belz, I'll refrain from self-effacing humor.

It's hard to tell when someone's serious when saying everybody else is wrong. We've had many of those, in fact.

Cuddles

18th May 2007, 07:22 AM

Worse yet, my lack of clarity may have obscurred my point.

What point? You said that the Manhattan Project was unique in several ways, including budget, secrecy, efficiency and knowledge. My point was that it was not unique in any of these things. That was all. Perhaps it is you that missed my point?

I've heard of that scheme before.

Of course, it involves overlooking the fact that you're bathing whole sections of the planet in microwaves...

Yeah, I've heard of it before as well. It wouldn't work. I just wanted references to the actual conversation he had about it so we wouldn't just end up going over the same stuff again.

Harpoon

18th May 2007, 10:22 AM

It's hard to tell when someone's serious when saying everybody else is wrong. We've had many of those, in fact.

Everybody has dealt with too many such creatures. Humor frequently is misinterpreted. I'll attempt to minimalize its use (I'll proably fail and again taste foot).

Harpoon

18th May 2007, 12:31 PM

What point? You said that the Manhattan Project was unique in several ways, including budget, secrecy, efficiency and knowledge. My point was that it was not unique in any of these things. That was all. Perhaps it is you that missed my point.

Your point about the Manhatten Project was clear. Nor did I imply you missed my point. I believe I took responsibility for obsuring my own point. However, having read through this entire thread last night (I am a newcomer here), I better understand your sensitivity.

But I'll repeat my point per your request -- We should greatly increase climate research. And by "greatly" I propose something of a magnitude unprecedented in human history.

articulett

18th May 2007, 12:32 PM

Thanks, mhaze. Something else to scare the begeezus out of me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it impossible to have the begeezus scared out of a skeptic since there is the presumption that the begeezus isn't int there in the first place...?

Wait...I know this is a non-sequitar, but I can tie it all together--

Let's see...global warming is related to heat which relates to hell or "hell on earth" which relates to god and "fear of god so you can avoid the hell" which relates to belief in Jesus which is the root word in the begeezus that harpoon doesn't want scared out of him which implies accepting that Jesus is in him which...

forget it...

Excuse my digression.

Carry on.

Belz...

18th May 2007, 01:09 PM

Everybody has dealt with too many such creatures. Humor frequently is misinterpreted. I'll attempt to minimalize its use (I'll proably fail and again taste foot).

I try to maximise it, myself.

Ooh... Articulett. Haven't seen you in a while.

Harpoon

18th May 2007, 01:32 PM

If they put all skeptics on trial, I might be able to cop a plea to a lessor crime.

Many things invoke my skepticism, but I still must deal with my own wishful thinking, presumption and other crimes against critical thinking.

I see this forum is nowhere to hide.

However, I thought my use of "begeezus" would only be criticized by the blasphemy-blasters.

So allow me to rephrase: GW scares the crap out of me. ;)

CapelDodger

18th May 2007, 03:39 PM

The idea of using large space-based solar panel platforms to collect the sun's energy and beam it back to Earth goes back to Professor Gerard K. O'Neill.

In SciFi terms the idea goes further back. SciFi is the sandbox of science :) .

The result would be very similar to an increase in solar output, at first glance. So it would cause warming in itself. Of course, if some of the energy was used to reduce atmospheric CO2 the feedback effect could compensate.

From what I've heard, plans for the implementation of such a scheme are not well advanced. There are, apparently, safety issues :rolleyes: . No wonder we're screwed.

CapelDodger

18th May 2007, 03:48 PM

Using the moon for the solar panel base and the moon's resources (silicone and oxygen) to produce the solar panels is as logical today as it was when written.

And as practicable.

CapelDodger

18th May 2007, 04:13 PM

The "news stories," of which there were several -- and one will likely come your way -- took the information that "afforestation implemented at high latitudes would be counterproductive," and made headlines that said northern forests are causing global warming.
In American, students who gravitate toward the journalism programs do so to avoid science and math classes. And it shows in much of the general media science reporting.

In the UK this is known as the "two cultures divide", science on one side and "the arts" on the other. It's almost de rigeur over here to profess ignorance of science if one is to be regarded as properly cultured. Very few journalists are wannabe scientists; the majority are wannabe writers, from the arts culture and carrying all its baggage.

It pisses me off, and has done since my schooldays. :mad: (Mine was an old school, that exemplified the divide. It's where I first discovered that Philosophy has no clothes :) .)

ksbluesfan

18th May 2007, 04:49 PM

I haven't read through this whole thread, so I apologize if this has been discussed.

I've heard that the sun is a 4% variable star. Is it possible that global warming is caused by that natural variation?

CapelDodger

18th May 2007, 05:01 PM

If they put all skeptics on trial, I might be able to cop a plea to a lessor crime.

Dilettantism? Barely a misdemeanour, after all.

Many things invoke my skepticism, but I still must deal with my own wishful thinking, presumption and other crimes against critical thinking.

That is absolutely the spirit. Question more messages you find comfortable, and question why some other messages are discomforting. We're all of us seeded with assumptions in our developing years, and they're hard to spot later on from inside (so to speak). They can be found and rooted out, but only a fool would claim they'd found all of them. Or that there weren't any in the first place.

I see this forum is nowhere to hide.

If you were hiding from something it's the last they'd look. JREF Science Forum? (To say nothing of AGW, which has a trans-Forum influence all of its own.)

However, I thought my use of "begeezus" would only be criticized by the blasphemy-blasters.

And now you know better.

So allow me to rephrase: GW scares the crap out of me. ;)

I'm pretty sanguine about it myself. I've no offspring to worry about, and the youngsters I know and care about are well-placed to cope with whatever comes up. I'm far more concerned about the political trajectory in Western Europe than the direct effects of global warming. And even given that, they won't be coming for people like me as far west as this until I'm long dead.

CapelDodger

18th May 2007, 05:10 PM

I've heard that the sun is a 4% variable star.

I've heard all sorts of stuff, much of it it bollocks. "4% variable star" looks made-up to me. 4% of what? Stars are crudely classified by letter and/or behaviour, but not so much with the percentages.

Is it possible that global warming is caused by that natural variation?

Nope. But at least you bothered to ask.

ksbluesfan

18th May 2007, 05:52 PM

I've heard all sorts of stuff, much of it it bollocks. "4% variable star" looks made-up to me. 4% of what? Stars are crudely classified by letter and/or behaviour, but not so much with the percentages.

Nope. But at least you bothered to ask.

According to Wikipedia (I know...), the sun goes through a variation of brightness usually about 0.1% over an 11 year solar cycle. I doubt it could contribute to global warming, but I'm not an astronomer. I don't even read my horoscope.

;)

Harpoon

18th May 2007, 06:46 PM

I'm pretty sanguine about it myself. I've no offspring to worry about, and the youngsters I know and care about are well-placed to cope with whatever comes up. I'm far more concerned about the political trajectory in Western Europe than the direct effects of global warming. And even given that, they won't be coming for people like me as far west as this until I'm long dead.

Where I live, we've been effected by drought cycles for a few decades. Just as our watershed improves, we slip into another drought. The past two droughts have lasted seven years, with only a few years in between.

This area was arid when the first white explorers passed through. Until fairly recently, the assumption was "this is the desert; live with it." But now we realize it's the dessert getting more arid .

So people are scratching their heads (accept for the politicans who scratch elsewhere). Is this early evidence of global warming?

But it's not just the climate. As you note, you have your apprehensions about the political trajectory of Western Europe.

Our political problem's trajectory is southward.

Las Vegas is 250 miles across the desert, a geological area of basin and range.

There are dozens of deep carbonate acquifers spattered across the region.

As Las Vegas has grown, it's depleted its water basins. Most of its potable water comes from the Colorado River -- once mighty, now because of human useage it doesn't reach the Gulf of California and the ocean anymore. And the drought is stressing all of the river's users.

So Las Vegas has planned a $2,000,000,000 pipeline north to access unused acquifers under our valleys.

This has been done over the protests of local residents, who fear the deep acquifer pumping will effect springs and wells. The state held hearings, and Las Vegas presented its scientific evidence.

Water flows down hill; science flows toward money. LV won.

We may not be experiencing the actual effects of global warming, but we are experiencing the type of political turmoil and intimidation that will face the entire planet once the GW heedings are believed, and governments start exercising "their responsibility" to the people.

Unless history is a poor teacher, the power elite will use GW as a stalking horse for its benefit.

Like you I am more worried about the treatment than the disease.

Science can provide the data and even a template for remediation. But that political structure will set the policy and implement it.

It's enough to scare the quatchy out of you.

knot

18th May 2007, 07:15 PM

According to Wikipedia (I know...), the sun goes through a variation of brightness usually about 0.1% over an 11 year solar cycle. I doubt it could contribute to global warming, but I'm not an astronomer. I don't even read my horoscope.

;)

Lol well then how about we turn off the sun and see if there is still global warming.

Astronomer and astrologer is a great difference.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

18th May 2007, 07:30 PM

"Who cares about the world? Future generations? pleeeasee, all I care is about now, about what I can get now. NOW, do you understand? NOW. Yes, some scientists are telling us that the world might be a mess if we continue to get what we are getting now. But they are wrong, how can I be sure about this? Because there are other scientists that say that the first ones are wrong. So, if there is a doubt, to hell with all of them and I will continue to get what I can get because I can get it NOW.

Get lost."

I know this could be a quote.

Corsair 115

18th May 2007, 08:00 PM

From what I've heard, plans for the implementation of such a scheme are not well advanced. There are, apparently, safety issues :rolleyes: . No wonder we're screwed.Well, the lack of a reliable and relatively cost-effective single-stage-to-orbit workhorse space vehicle is a major impediment to any serious industrialization of space, whether or not such industrialization involves solar power stations.

I've heard that the sun is a 4% variable star. Is it possible that global warming is caused by that natural variation?If that were true, then we should see warming across ALL the planets and moons of the solar system. Mercury, being the closest, should be the most affected by any increase in solar activity.

There is no evidence to indicate any sort of solar system-wide warming due to an increase in solar intensity.

Schneibster

19th May 2007, 12:36 AM

So I surveyed Google news. Off the top of the list was the Dec. 5, 2005 press release from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (a link I included in my post).
The next was a "news story" about the presentation by LLNL to the National Academy of Science. It was posted on an "environmental" website operated by the Heartland Institute -- not exactly an outfit I trust for balanced environmental news, since I don't smoke anymore.Well, I hadn't gotten around to the source yet, but LLNL did kinda tweak the ol' antennae a little. Of course, once I read the actual text of the report, then I focused on that.

There were several more articles listed on other conservative sites which appeared to be more of the same. I preferred to go to the Proceedings of the National Academy Science webpage, clicked on the April 17 archive, copied and posted the abstract and included the link to the full report.
I believe I fully cited the source material and made it available for scrutiny.
The "news stories," of which there were several -- and one will likely come your way -- took the information that "afforestation implemented at high latitudes would be counterproductive," and made headlines that said northern forests are causing global warming.
In American, students who gravitate toward the journalism programs do so to avoid science and math classes. And it shows in much of the general media science reporting.
I included the actual report, and since my reading comprehension is adequate to most tasks, I see no need to re-read the abstract.
And if you missed the news cycle, try 'northern forests' at Goggle news. Pick your choose. I went to PNAS quickly, but the list of slanted stories appeared lengthy.I miss the "news cycle" a LOT. I guess that might be because mostly I don't care much about the "news cycle." I particularly don't care for or about Faux "News" and CNN doesn't strike me as much better. I hear a lot of whining about "fair and balanced," and not very much talking about the duty of the news media to report what's really going on. Most of my sources have little to do with the traditional media, and I find out about things that I'm interested in 36-48 hours and relatively often even more, before they appear in the traditional media, if they appear at all.

As has been said by others, we get a lot of this kind of thing here, and it's presented as fact. While I do appreciate humor, there are far too many people for whom it is by no means humorous, so you might want to make some gesture to indicate that's what you had in mind as a hint. Don't be too deadpan if you haven't made your position clear.

Finally, good reading comprehension skills are by no means common. I see people all the time who read things and think they support points of view or opinions that are, in my opinion and commonly in the parts they didn't bother to quote diametrically opposed to the opinion they claim they support. So I ask your pardon for making an apparently unwarranted assumption, but I point out that what you said had every appearance of this kind of sophistry. You don't have to assume people are idiots to give a few more substantive hints as to your opinion to be sure you aren't misinterpreted; I avoided commenting on the last post that looked this way in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, but two was a little much.

Harpoon

19th May 2007, 01:51 AM

Communication with the written word is imperfect. Two people of like education, background and intelligence can easily miscomprehend what is written one to the other.

Add curtural differences, intelligence and educational variances and there can still be confusion where none was warranted. Among strangers who haven't yet become accustomed to each other's writing, I would think the imperfections of communication would be even more pronounced.

I hope I'll be able to continue to participate in the JREF forums long enough for my idiosyncrasies and occasional spelling or grammatical gafs to become familiar and not interfer with clear understanding.

It's been an interesting experience to join in this discussion. I've felt free to express my opinions and have read with vigor and interest those expressed by others.

But the string of conversation has proved addictive, and I've spent time here to the neglect of other needs. I intend to continue to participate and hope the frequency of my participation will be sufficient to affect some familiarity.

Schneibster, if at any time my tone has inferred I feel superior to anyone, I must apologize for the offense. Not only would it have been unintended, I would be guilty of fraud, as I doubt anything about me is superior to other humans.

In a less broad, philosophical context, and more specific to this site, I would find it hard to consider any of the individuals who have posted here to be idiots, even if in every case I can't see the logic behind their thinking.

I only expressed one opinion in my posting about the LLNL report -- the dismay at fuzzy science reporting in the media. I was specific enough about that, so I presume from your mention of "hint about my opinions," that you may have felt I was promoting the bogus interpretation by the media of the LLNL report. To the contrary.

My purpose was singularly informational.

And as I read more of your postings over time, I'll become more familiar with your manner of expression and understand you more precisely.

As for your comments about the news, I'm not a great believer in the "fair and balanced" left v. right ideological battle in media. There's certainly more opinion presented as fact, but the real problem is reporter laziness.

Add to that deminished news staffs and closed bureaus as owners take more profits, and you have today's dismal landscape.

I seldom take offense when my facts, opinions or clarity are questioned. I've learned far more from criticism than from complements,even if I sulk a bit after a trip to the woodshed.

Well the coffee is always fresh and good in Seattle -- can't say the same about here, so I'm going to bed.

Harpoon

19th May 2007, 03:59 PM

CapelDodger

19th May 2007, 04:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html

Scientists wrong again. Once again, underestimating the severity of the problem.

There are some quite dramatic results coming out of the Southern Ocean and its surrounds. It's not surprising that models haven't performed terribly well there up to date, since the geography of the ocean-bed has only quite recently been studied in detail. For the simple reason that there's never been any submarine warfare down there, I reckon. It turns out that the ridge between Cape Horn and the Peninsula is more serrated, and on average shallower, than was thought when early models were built. That tends to increase the turnover rate in the Circumpolar Current, initially burying heat which comes back later. Later being, perhaps, from about now or even a tad before.

It'll be interesting to see what models project when they incorporate the new observations.

I'll say it again, get yourself and yours out of there. Come to Old South Wales, there's never any drought around here. The beer's good, rugby is a religion, there are oodles of sheep - what's not to like? Would you miss the desertification and the wildfires? The politicians? Or any of the other crawling poisonous beasties? Surely not.

CapelDodger

19th May 2007, 05:04 PM

On May 1, 'a unique person' initiated this discussion, noting scientists had erred in their climate models: the globe is heating up faster than anticipated in the IPCC reports.

To return to his premise, GW research appears to have provided mixed results. The conclusions about a world-wide warming trend are credible, but the argument isn't quite as convincing when it comes to magnitude, duration, causation and mediation.

Well, that wasn't actually the premise. aup was somewhat sloppy with the thread title, for which he was mildly taken to task, but the models he referred to in the OP are ice-dynamics models, not climate models. The world isn't heating up faster than ws predicted, it's well within the predicted range of Hansen et al twenty years back which is pretty much what the IPCC goes with.

What's happening is that ice is melting significantly faster at this temperature than was predicted by glaciologists and ... what's the collective noun for ice-scientists? Whatever, those people.

This is not surprising, since modelling the behaviour of ice en masse is a much more difficult job than modelling climate.

Some who advocate the IPCC recommendations be adopted as policy believe the findings to be accurate; others (possibly including 'a unique person), suggest they are too conservative.

aup suggested that the models turned out to be too conservative, given the observed outcome. He and I, and many like us, go straight to the science for the science, we don't need it validated by the IPCC. The IPCC serves a different purpose, which includes recommendations. These are not science.

We could argue all up and around about the IPCC's recommendations, but that has no bearing.

So within the GW advocacy community there is some disagreement about the accuracy of the models. The doubters, rejectionists, deniers, fatalists and kindred foot-draggers are more unanimous in their doubt.

You're mixing up models here, and it's the object of the denialist strategy that you do. You are part of their target audience.

Climate models based on the long-established physics of the greenhouse effect predicted, twenty years ago, that the climate would be something very much like this about now, with the actual CO2 output during that period. There's no doubt about the accuracy of climate models and the reality of AGW.

Denialists bring up models of ice-caps and hurricanes, which are indeed and admittedly imprecise, and try to label as them as "climate models". They aren't. Climate models are about that vast majority of the world which is not ice-covered and where hurricanes hardly ever happen.

Ice-melt, hurricane activity, African precipitation patterns given a particular climate, such as the one we'll have next year or in twenty - these are the difficult problems, the ones where the flap of a butterfly's wing or the fart of a rat in Rhyll can make a difference. The big picture, climate, is not nearly so chaotic.

And yes, we're screwed on so many levels. AGW is just another.

In the 14CE, Europe was already into a period of crisis when the Black Death struck. An interesting parallel presents itself :) . It was a combination of Peak Land and Peak Trees back in those days, Peak Oil today. And the whammy to come just after that.

The 14th-15thCE crisis mortally wounded feudalism in Western Europe, and ushered in nationalism; I think the current crisis will mortally wound the nation-state system. Mark my words :) .

mhaze

19th May 2007, 06:25 PM

You're mixing up models here, and it's the object of the denialist strategy that you do. You are part of their target audience.

Climate models based on the long-established physics of the greenhouse effect predicted, twenty years ago, that the climate would be something very much like this about now, with the actual CO2 output during that period. There's no doubt about the accuracy of climate models and the reality of AGW.

Denialists bring up models of ice-caps and hurricanes, which are indeed and admittedly imprecise, and try to label as them as "climate models". They aren't. Climate models are about that vast majority of the world which is not ice-covered and where hurricanes hardly ever happen.
.

Carpal, work requires that I leave this rather interesting conversation, but I'll start another in a week or two on the implications of this entire thing from an economic perspective, which rather interests me. I would note in passing, though that the bringing of of ice caps, hurricanes, and every other minutae of daily weather which seems a bit unusual at the moment, is brought up as proof of global warming, so therefore one should expect these ridiculous assertions to be refuted by what you group as "denialists".
It might be argued that this is only the popular media latching on to a subject while having only the foggiest understanding of it, but nonetheless, there is a great deal of baggage of many sorts on the GW/AGW advocate. Indeed.

Harpoon

19th May 2007, 08:08 PM

In the 14CE, Europe was already into a period of crisis when the Black Death struck. An interesting parallel presents itself :) . It was a combination of Peak Land and Peak Trees back in those days, Peak Oil today. And the whammy to come just after that.
The 14th-15thCE crisis mortally wounded feudalism in Western Europe, and ushered in nationalism; I think the current crisis will mortally wound the nation-state system. Mark my words :) .

The church was predominately ineffectual during those crises, if I recall my Euro-history correctly, and paid the price.

If science proves as ineffective in solving the 21st Century's global crises, it may find its pews equally empty.

Schneibster

19th May 2007, 09:41 PM

Schneibster, if at any time my tone has inferred I feel superior to anyone, I must apologize for the offense. Not only would it have been unintended, I would be guilty of fraud, as I doubt anything about me is superior to other humans.Then we share an opinion about ourselves. I recognize that I have skills and knowledge that others might not; but that doesn't make me inherently superior. This is an important portion of my personal philosophy: I believe that no one is inherently superior and that it is in fact impossible for anyone to be, and I dislike people who think they are. By hard work and study, it is possible to excel at what one studies. But that is a matter of how much work one chooses to put into this or that. I find that most people have something they're really good at.

Since we're talking philosophy.

I didn't perceive you as making assumptions of superiority, however; I was merely pointing out that clear communication might be more likely if you gave a bit more attention to making sure that irony or sardonic statements were perhaps a bit better delineated. I was perhaps a little sardonic myself.

I only expressed one opinion in my posting about the LLNL report -- the dismay at fuzzy science reporting in the media. I was specific enough about that, so I presume from your mention of "hint about my opinions," that you may have felt I was promoting the bogus interpretation by the media of the LLNL report. To the contrary.That's now clear. My reference was to an earlier posting, which I now perceive was also ironic in intent. That was not, however, clear until you made it so.

And as I read more of your postings over time, I'll become more familiar with your manner of expression and understand you more precisely.That's likely true, and I'll be more sensitive to irony from you from now on, as well.

In any case, we're cool. Thanks for being concerned about it.

Harpoon

19th May 2007, 10:15 PM

Climate models based on the long-established physics of the greenhouse effect predicted, twenty years ago, that the climate would be something very much like this about now, with the actual CO2 output during that period. There's no doubt about the accuracy of climate models and the reality of AGW.

There's no doubt about ... the reality of AGW.

Of course laymen have many doubts: about the science, about the deniers and about the politicans.

It's a discussion worthy of our best saloon.

Cowboys, miners and Shoshones share the same rail. There's a judge, newspaper editor, prison guard or two. There are environmentalists who live here because they love the open vistas, wildlife, the clear streams and mountains. The people who make their living from the earth, the ranchers and miners, share the same appreciation. There is no shortage of higher-education degrees. Fields of expertise vary widely, as does life experience.

The conversation about Las Vegas' plan to import our groundwater, eventually shifts to global warming.

There seems to be agreement that the planet is getting warming. So someone is doing a good job of education somewhere.

But there the agreement stops.

Many of these folks work with the federal land managment agencies, and their jobs include collecting a variety of data about snow packs, stream flows, soils and all manner of atmospheric shenanigans.

Such records go back only a hundred years or less. That limits their ability to use such short-term data to interpret the climate history of this area, known as the Great Basin. Of course there's other evidence.

Some of that evidence comes from tree rings. The Bristlecone pine can live for longer than 4,000 years, and the record it provides has given a clear picture here of spiraling cycles of drought over hundreds of years.

None of this evidence shows an extreme acceleration in climate conditions in recent decades. But this is local data, and applies only to this region.

So the local questions aren't so much about the warming, as how unusual are such conditions in earth's past. Didn't volcanism ever dump as much or more carbon into the atmosphere as we do? Hasn't the world been warming since the last glaciation?

The crux of concern here is the claim we face something imminent and catastrophic? That seems still to be up for debate on this forum.

Because of the lack of industrialization and profusion of agriculture here, we're a carbon sink. But Las Vegas needs more power, as well as water, and plans are in the permitting process to build two, coal-fired power plants in our region -- hated by those who see only potential environmental harm and praised by those who see only economic benefit.

It makes the global warming issue up close and personal.

In that respect, I think we are in advance of much of the rest of the world.

Schneibster

19th May 2007, 10:18 PM

The church was predominately ineffectual during those crises, if I recall my Euro-history correctly, and paid the price.

If science proves as ineffective in solving the 21st Century's global crises, it may find its pews equally empty.This is a profound misunderstanding of the respective roles of religion and science, in my view.

The Christian Church is and always has been about politics. Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles fomented, led, and eventually (unfortunately for most of them, after they were dead) won one of the most successful revolutions in the history of Western civilization. They took over the government of the Roman Empire, the single most successful and powerful empire in the history of Western civilization. Never, ever forget it, and never ever think they do. They failed only because they succeeded. Success made them arrogant, and they fell as the arrogant always do.

Science is not a political movement. Science is about finding out what's happening. That's all it is. It's the most successful method for finding out what's really happening and excluding bias of all kinds that has ever been seen, and is far wider in scope than the Church has ever been. But it does not say what one should do. It merely presents facts. What one decides to do with or about those facts or feels those facts imply about what one should decide to do, is completely outside the bounds of science, and any scientist will tell you so. Scientists do not seek power; they seek knowledge. Science has no pews. Its adherents seek as much of the truth as it is possible for humans to know, nothing more or less.

If you wish to know as much of the truth as it is possible for you to find out, you will follow it; if you do not follow it, then you will succumb to bias and confusion. There is no third path, and that has become increasingly clear. Anyone who tells you there is some third path winds up taking advantage of you, for money, or power, or both. This board is dedicated to identifying such individuals; what you do with that knowledge is up to you. But if you want to know what's going on, as opposed to what someone wishes were going on, or what someone wishes you to think is going on, there is only one way to find it. If you are correct then we will sink into a second Dark Ages.

I seriously doubt that will happen. The power that technology gives to the individual is too great. It will not be abandoned; most people figure out most of the time which side of the bread the butter's on. The Big Lie strategy only works for a little while; and when it fails, well, as they say, payback is a b***h.

a_unique_person

20th May 2007, 12:29 AM

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2077118,00.html

Climate change may have passed a key tipping point that could mean temperatures rising more quickly than predicted and it being harder to tackle global warming, research suggests.Bristol University researchers say a previously unexplained surge of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in recent years is due to more greenhouse gas escaping from trees, plants and soils. Global warming was making vegetation less able to absorb the carbon pollution pumped out by human activity.

Harpoon

20th May 2007, 09:37 AM

People have needed their shamans apparently since the beginnings of society.

The priesthoods filled a fundamental role: attempting to bridge the gap
between the known and unknown.

The people outside the exclusive, secret societies looked to them for guidance how to live their lives in a manner that wouldn't upset the old apple cart, or whatever before the wheel.

The masses don't presume to understand how the magicians appease and please, only that they deliver stability.

We've come a long way, baby.

Now imperical evidence has replaced wishful ritual as our sacrament -- at least in a sizeable chunk of the modern world.

But even in the developed countries, societies still have that shaman niche and itch. Science is expected to know all and answer all. Your typical salaryman views science with similar awe as the Middle Ages' serf did the church, or the Mayan a river of blood down the temple steps.

This wouldn't matter a hoot since scientists aren't dependent on superstition or the variances of some unseen, dark spiritual realm.

But science isn't omnipotent in our quasi-democracies. Its position is supported by politics, economics and the will of the masses.

Even in our enlightened period, if science cannot successfully breach the gap between the known and unknown; if the cautions and solutions presented by science fail to deliver the stability and safety our little children demand, its influence can be drastically reduced.

Horrors! Impossible! Science and its methodology are the only salvation available to mankind! Too true.

But ignorance is a powerful force. Don't be too sure that enlightenment will continue to vanquish it under all circumstances.

Those unwashed masses that influence policy and the purse, bow to science, but see it no less as mumbo jumbo than their predecessors viewed their priesthoods and animal sacrifices.

Science isn't to blame. But if it fails to deliver, the power elites won't take responsibility. Science will be blamed, and could be vanquished in the future as easily as the pope did it in earlier times.

Never count ignorance out.

CapelDodger

20th May 2007, 02:23 PM

I would note in passing, though that the bringing of of ice caps, hurricanes, and every other minutae of daily weather which seems a bit unusual at the moment, is brought up as proof of global warming, so therefore one should expect these ridiculous assertions to be refuted by what you group as "denialists".

Were they to restrict themselvew to doing that, there would be no problem. What denialsts also do is attack honest scientists and good science (in which such claims do not feature) and if they can't do it by misdirection they do it by lying.

It might be argued that this is only the popular media latching on to a subject while having only the foggiest understanding of it, but nonetheless, there is a great deal of baggage of many sorts on the GW/AGW advocate. Indeed.

Would the baggage include, oh I don't know ... Marxism? Anything like that? Or perhaps AGW is a bit gay? Both? Anyhoo, we'd appreciate an inventory, when you can find the time.

(Gems from far Samarkand maybe? I do hope so.)

CapelDodger

20th May 2007, 03:13 PM

This is a profound misunderstanding of the respective roles of religion and science, in my view.

Oh yes.

The Christian Church is and always has been about politics. Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles fomented, led, and eventually (unfortunately for most of them, after they were dead) won one of the most successful revolutions in the history of Western civilization. They took over the government of the Roman Empire, the single most successful and powerful empire in the history of Western civilization. Never, ever forget it, and never ever think they do. They failed only because they succeeded. Success made them arrogant, and they fell as the arrogant always do.

Not so egregiously wrong that I can't let that go [twitch] with a warning.

As for the rest, damn' well said.

Religions are bedded in society, from micro to macro. It's what they're about. Society only features in science as an observable phaenomenon.

A general aim of science is to get from the particular to the general. Religion, and popular belief, is all about particular social circumstances; when those change, so do popular beliefs and religions. And systems of government. This is all stuff that science is separate from - in principle, mostly in practice, and good scientists strive to make it even more so. Science is not about value-judgements or social implications, it's about what the evidence is telling us. And I, for one, like to listen.

CapelDodger

20th May 2007, 03:41 PM

... Las Vegas needs more power, as well as water, and plans are in the permitting process to build two, coal-fired power plants in our region -- hated by those who see only potential environmental harm and praised by those who see only economic benefit.

It makes the global warming issue up close and personal.

This isn't actually a global warming issue. This is a having Las Vegas issue. Such a city in the middle of a desert. Global warming or not, they'd have been at your aquifers about now anyway. It's not the American Way to conform to the dictates of geography, oh no. The American Way is to impose oneself by the application of technology. Life may be unsustainable without air-conditioning, but what does that matter when you've got AC?

(It'll matter if the juice gets cut off, of course ...)

Places like Las Vegas are so grossly unsustainable already that AGW will have little impact. The same is true for great swathes of the US South-West; an artificial environment is maintained by the use of energy and the mining or importation of water.

It can't last. It never could have, global warming or not.

CapelDodger

20th May 2007, 04:24 PM

The church was predominately ineffectual during those crises, if I recall my Euro-history correctly, and paid the price.

If science proves as ineffective in solving the 21st Century's global crises, it may find its pews equally empty.

After the Black Death many assumptions were questioned, one being that when gods are angry it's because the people have failed the priests. As a result blame started to fall on the priests, and Protestantism was born, grandfather to secularism. Feudalism started dying. There were silver linings.

When people look back on this crisis - entering the speculative here :) - they'll blame politicians, not scientists. Faith-based politicians more than most, nationalist politicians most of all. Where religion was the long-term loser in the Late Medieval crisis, ideology and nationalism will be the long-term losers in this crisis. Science - and its close associate technology - have been on an upward trajectory all the way through, with no sign of flagging.

I can see Bush as being an icon of the age just as Chamberlain is of late 30's Europe. I can't see a scientist in the same role. Science isn't claiming to be directing matters, it has only an advisory role, and politicians insist on making that very clear. They deserve the blame, and they'll get it; if for no other reason, a new generation of politicians in a different world will make sure of it.

a_unique_person

21st May 2007, 09:31 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/climate-change-bad-to-worse/2007/05/22/1179601340054.html

The world is now on track to experience more catastrophic damages from climate change than in the worst-case scenario forecast by international experts, scientists have warned.
The research, published in a prestigious US science journal, shows that between 2000 and 2004 the rate of increase in global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels was three times greater than in the 1990s.
That is faster than even the worst-case scenario modelled by the world's leading scientists in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, published over recent months, because the updated emissions figures were not available in time to be included.
The climbing emissions mean that average global temperatures are now on track to rise by more than four degrees this century - enough to thaw vast areas of arctic permafrost and leave about 3 billion people suffering from water shortages, including in Australia.

What was all that about it's not that serious, and there's nothing to worry about, and there's plenty of time, and we can't afford it.

Schneibster

21st May 2007, 11:06 PM

Hmmm, I wonder if "we're screwed" applies yet. "We're screwed" is beginning to look like a pretty conservative viewpoint.

CapelDodger

22nd May 2007, 04:55 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/climate-change-bad-to-worse/2007/05/22/1179601340054.html

What was all that about it's not that serious, and there's nothing to worry about, and there's plenty of time, and we can't afford it.

And nucular power would have saved us if it hadn't been for those damned environmentalists! :mad:

Earthborn

22nd May 2007, 05:30 PM

Hmmm, I wonder if "we're screwed" applies yet. "We're screwed" is beginning to look like a pretty conservative viewpoint."But surely the oceans will absorb the excess CO2, won't they? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html?eref=rss_space)" :covereyes

Canada Mints

22nd May 2007, 06:25 PM

I haven't read all 11 pages of comments so if I am repeating something that has already been said you can have your money back.

Melting ice shelves do not prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure it even proves naturally occuring global warming.

Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together.

Just because the Earth has gotten minimally warmer over the last 100 years does not prove that man caused it.

By the way, it's not a bad gig if you're models are wrong and you still get credit because you were trying to be "conservative".

I read the article. It's light on science and heavy on doom and gloom which seems pretty popular with most people.

CapelDodger

22nd May 2007, 06:33 PM

"But surely the oceans will absorb the excess CO2, won't they? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html?eref=rss_space)" :covereyes

a_unique_person has pointed out the pincer-movement he's in danger of getting caught in ...

Relatively little was known about the Southern Ocean until the last few decades. It's on no trade-routes, it has no strategic significance, it has penguins and opportunities to demonstrate one's ruggedness in adversity. Antarctica was, inevitably, where denialism would build its Final Redoubt in the mists of uncertainty.

Since they did, of course, the Southern Ocean has become significant, and much research has been done. Funded because "more research needs to be done" has been consistent policy for a while now.

This is going to be the best-observed train-wreck in history.

Harpoon

22nd May 2007, 06:50 PM

In our neck of the sagebrush, the environmentalists are opposed to more hydro-power. Those dang dams stop downstream flooding, which effects the life cycle of the spotted, hair-lipped frog or some genuine creature.

Sadly, they're right.

The wildlife lovers are opposed to a proposed wind farm. The props are dangerous to flying birds. And raptors will perch on the motor housings, giving them a wider field of vision and advantage over the poor, scurrying stunted rock hare or some actual other rodent.

And sadly, again, they're right.

I've heard complaints about tapping the plentiful geothermal energy sources we have in Nevada. The pipe network onsite and transmission lines across public lands are the culprit.

Choices, choices, choices.

a_unique_person

22nd May 2007, 07:32 PM

a_unique_person

22nd May 2007, 08:46 PM

This is going to be the best-observed train-wreck in history.

I suspect you are right.

Corsair 115

22nd May 2007, 08:59 PM

Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together.I can easily believe people can get those things confused. I find it much more difficult to believe scientists would.

Belz...

23rd May 2007, 05:28 AM

Melting ice shelves do not prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure it even proves naturally occuring global warming.

Of course not. It's called a symptom.

Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together.

"And scientists apparently". Are you sure you don't have some sort of bias ? You don't sound particularily objective.

Just because the Earth has gotten minimally warmer over the last 100 years does not prove that man caused it.

Of course not. It's called a symptom.

By the way, it's not a bad gig if you're models are wrong and you still get credit because you were trying to be "conservative".

You don't think it's bad if things are worse than anticipated ? Forgive me for not cheering.

I read the article. It's light on science and heavy on doom and gloom which seems pretty popular with most people.

Perhaps. Your post does not prove that humans had nothing to do with global warming. There.

Cuddles

23rd May 2007, 05:33 AM

Just because the Earth has gotten minimally warmer over the last 100 years does not prove that man caused it.

But it does prove global warming. So your claim that people confuse global warming and climate change does not appear to be well founded.

Canada Mints

23rd May 2007, 05:42 AM

I can easily believe people can get those things confused. I find it much more difficult to believe scientists would.

Scientists are just people. Randi has given many examples of that.

Canada Mints

23rd May 2007, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Canada Mints
Melting ice shelves do not prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure it even proves naturally occuring global warming.
Of course not. It's called a symptom.

It's called melting ice shelves. When it rains, is that a symptom?

Quote:
Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together.
"And scientists apparently". Are you sure you don't have some sort of bias ? You don't sound particularily objective.

We all have bias. I like most scientists just like I like most policemen. Am I supposed to be "particularily objective?" pot-kettle-black

Quote:
Just because the Earth has gotten minimally warmer over the last 100 years does not prove that man caused it.
Of course not. It's called a symptom.

Quote:
By the way, it's not a bad gig if you're models are wrong and you still get credit because you were trying to be "conservative".
You don't think it's bad if things are worse than anticipated ? Forgive me for not cheering.

This is so wrong......do I even bother to try......I guess not.

Quote:
I read the article. It's light on science and heavy on doom and gloom which seems pretty popular with most people.
Perhaps. Your post does not prove that humans had nothing to do with global warming. There.

Neither does it prove there is no Santa Claus so I guess you got me. (I think you were kidding?)

Megalodon

23rd May 2007, 06:38 AM

I haven't read all 11 pages of comments so if I am repeating something that has already been said you can have your money back.

Obviously you should... you might get a clue.

Melting ice shelves do not prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure it even proves naturally occuring global warming.

Strawman. Nobody claimed that "..melting ice shelves prove...yadda, yadda". Melting ice shelves are evidence, since the theory we are working with predicted they would melt, in addition to a pile of other evidence you can have access to if you read the thread.

Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together.

You desperatly need a clue. Please read the thread.

BTW, can you give some evidence on how scientists apparently confuse the 3? Or any links to your research on the subject, since (apparently) you're one of the few who are not confused in the matter?

Just because the Earth has gotten minimally warmer over the last 100 years does not prove that man caused it.

No, but it does show that you have very little idea of what you're talking about.

By the way, it's not a bad gig if you're models are wrong and you still get credit because you were trying to be "conservative".

The models are not wrong. Qualitatively they are quite accurate, since the predictions are generally right. Quantitavely they seem to have been done conservatively. There are two causes for this: Scientists don't have absolute knowledge of the world, so the models will miss some of the feedbacks in the system. In this case the main acting feedbacks seem to be positive ones, exacerbating the problem. A second cause is that this kind of models are run in a variety of scenarios ranging from "best case" to "OMFG". The results presented tend to be either the average ones (plus error bars) or the best case (with error bars and the explanation that it's the best case scenario). this is done so that idiots don't accuse the authors of unfounded alarmism.
Of course, idiots are suprisingly resourceful.

I read the article. It's light on science and heavy on doom and gloom which seems pretty popular with most people.

And you would know how, exactly?

Harpoon

23rd May 2007, 06:50 AM

Is this a correct description of what's occurring?
We're still in an ice age, but in one of the many periods when glaciation is in retreat.
That's a natural cycle.
The problem is when you add human activity.
If the earth were in a cooling period with advanced or advancing glaciation, our emissions possibly wouldn't matter (you can freeze to death in a greenhouse).
But we are in a long-term, natural warming period. So our influence becomes dangerous.
It like the last straw that broke that poor camel's back. The straw didn't weigh that much, but the rest of the load did.
We're now providing "the straw."

Belz...

23rd May 2007, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Canada Mints
Melting ice shelves do not prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure it even proves naturally occuring global warming.
Of course not. It's called a symptom.

It's called melting ice shelves. When it rains, is that a symptom?

Of course. It's a symptom of condensation. It doesn't prove that humans are responsible, but then it's not meant to.

Please learn to use the quote function.

We all have bias.

Well, that's very interesting. I'd like to think that people who actually study this problem can look beyond their bias, if any, and come to a logical conclusion based on evidence.

You, on the other hand, seem to use "we all have bias" in order to be able to ignore any and all conclusion you don't like.

I like most scientists just like I like most policemen. Am I supposed to be "particularily objective?" pot-kettle-black

Pot and kettle, really ? Where exactly did I show _my_ bias ?

This is so wrong......do I even bother to try......I guess not.

Well you're not going to sleaze your way out of this one this easily.

You said: "By the way, it's not a bad gig if you're models are wrong and you still get credit because you were trying to be "conservative". "

Now, let's just be clear, what exactly did you mean by that ?

Neither does it prove there is no Santa Claus so I guess you got me. (I think you were kidding?)

I was pointing out, using half-witted humour, that you have no evidence, only personal incredulity, and that this is not an argument.

Scientists in the past decades have been increasingly sure about the humans' role in global warming. Aside from "they could be wrong", do you have a reason to doubt their conclusions ?

Diamond

23rd May 2007, 08:33 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html

Scientists wrong again. Once again, underestimating the severity of the problem.

No just a few scientists ramping up the justification for their next series of expensive field trips.

Boringly, the Southern Hemisphere's "temperature" hasn't changed in more than 25 years, but lets not get facts to intrude into a debate on AGW, when we have rhetorical flourishes like the one above. If the Southern Ocean is supposed to be one of these great carbon sinks and actual measurements show that it doesn't, does that mean that anything is wrong with the real world or just with the scientists hypotheses getting debunked by reality?

Carbon dioxide never has caused temperature rise in the past, even when it was much higher than today. Its one of those "inconvenient truths" that neither AUP nor Capeldodgy will bother to explain.

We could get back to AUP's original statements that because climate models fail to predict the current melting of the Arctic therefore its because the models aren't pessimistic enough (rather than just being wrong). On the other hand, if the climate models predict warming for the Antarctica and Antarctica continues to cool does this mean that optimism is a good thing or that the climate modellers can't get anything right at either pole in any useful timeframe?

Its also not surprising that Vaclav Klaus is skeptical of environmentalism - he was brought up in a Communist country where such rhetoric on the evils of capitalism were part of the normal discourse. That modern environmentalism closely resembles neo-Marxism is not by accident - everything is still there, including the demonization of anyone who opposes them as lackeys of [insert large capitalistic concern here] and the censorship of opposing views was an everyday occurrence.

What we now have is a strange resurgence of Marxist ideas promoted by people who never experienced living in a Marxist country the first time around (and who are passionately airbrushing history in the process)

Megalodon

23rd May 2007, 10:10 AM

As always, Diamond, lots of words, but no substance....

Canada Mints

23rd May 2007, 11:27 AM

Obviously you should... you might get a clue.

Lame.

[QUOTE]You desperatly need a clue. Please read the thread.

Oh and will I get a clue from other insightful posts like this one? Or will I get weak personal attacks if someone disagrees with your opinion?

I'll say upfront I am not a climate scientist. I do however have a degree in chemical engineering, am used to creating and interpreting simple models, perform some level of data analysis every day and have been interested in "global warming" since a skeptical college professor turned me onto it. Before then I had been an uninformed, CNN educated believer.

Now I read about it ALOT, everyday in fact. I think I have a clue.

Can you say the same or are you, as I suspect, just a blow-hard? You watch Al Gore's movie and all of a sudden you're an expert?

BTW, can you give some evidence on how scientists apparently confuse the 3? Or any links to your research on the subject, since (apparently) you're one of the few who are not confused in the matter?

They are used interchangebly which is not technically accurate. Do you dispute that they are not the same? Go look it up you don't have to argue with me over it.

Then read a random number of articles on the subject and decide for yourself.

No, but it does show that you have very little idea of what you're talking about.

Why do you bother to write stuff like this? You have no idea what my level of knowledge is.

The models are not wrong. Qualitatively they are quite accurate, since the predictions are generally right.

Everything I have read about the models is that they are very inaccurate. Do you have a link that shows otherwise? I'll gladly read it.

How can it be qualitatively accurate? The model said it would get warmer and it did?

Quantitavely they seem to have been done conservatively. There are two causes for this: Scientists don't have absolute knowledge of the world, so the models will miss some of the feedbacks in the system.

Can't argue with that. I would guess that they miss a lot more than just the feedbacks but also some of the main drivers.

In this case the main acting feedbacks seem to be positive ones, exacerbating the problem. A second cause is that this kind of models are run in a variety of scenarios ranging from "best case" to "OMFG". The results presented tend to be either the average ones (plus error bars) or the best case (with error bars and the explanation that it's the best case scenario). this is done so that idiots don't accuse the authors of unfounded alarmism.

The problem with these models (I ssume you mean GCMs) is that they can't test them. They are just computer simulations. They create them to recreate the results from data they input then hope they can accurately predict the future by extrapolating out.

varwoche

23rd May 2007, 11:39 AM

Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together. I challenge you to produce compelling evidence of ONE climate scientist who confuses these topics. If it's really apparent, it should be a slam dunk for you to produce one example.

CapelDodger

23rd May 2007, 12:13 PM

Why is anybody engaging with Canada Mints? We've all seen it before, and dealt with it, mostly on this thread. Canada Mints shows no sign of wanting to be informed on this subject, so it's just pearls before swine, as the saying goes.

CapelDodger

23rd May 2007, 12:27 PM

Is this a correct description of what's occurring?
We're still in an ice age, but in one of the many periods when glaciation is in retreat.

Glaciation stabilised many thousands of years ago. Glacial retreat at the beginning of an interglacial is very rapid - a few thousand years and it's about done. There follows a much longer period of stable glaciation followed by a much slower glacial advance at the end of the inter-glacial.

That's a natural cycle.

According to which, we are in a period of glacial stablility or gradual advance. In practice, of course, we're in a period of glacial retreat that's more rapid than at the end of the last glaciation.

The problem is when you add human activity.

It can certainly affect matters.

But we are in a long-term, natural warming period.

No, we're not (see above for details). If anything the world was cooling for eight thousand years or so before 1900. At that point the story starts to get away from the script, and by now it's become a completely different play.

CapelDodger

23rd May 2007, 12:42 PM

Carbon dioxide never has caused temperature rise in the past, even when it was much higher than today. Its one of those "inconvenient truths" that neither AUP nor Capeldodgy will bother to explain.

We have, but it just doesn't seem to take with you.

Past - how you do love to dwell in the past, don't you? The present is a bit scary - increases in CO2 have been climate-led. Ergo, CO2 increase follows warming and CO2 decline trails cooling. The current CO2 increase is not climate-driven, but is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, billions of tons of it annually. That's what is causing the current climate change. We are not living the past (try as some of us might), we are experiencing a completely novel modern phaenomenon.

So perhaps we'll see no more of these lies about us not answering your point. M'kay?

On a different note, the discussion we were having about the Antarctic has been on pause for a while. Care to respond to my last contribution?

Corsair 115

23rd May 2007, 02:31 PM

Scientists are just people. Randi has given many examples of that.Sure. But hundreds and hundreds of them, from around the world, doing many different studies, and lastly pooling their results together to come to a conclusion about what all this data indicates, are all just confused?

That would strain credulity to the point of breaking, I would say.

a_unique_person

23rd May 2007, 07:10 PM

No just a few scientists ramping up the justification for their next series of expensive field trips.

Evidence?

Boringly, the Southern Hemisphere's "temperature" hasn't changed in more than 25 years, but lets not get facts to intrude into a debate on AGW, when we have rhetorical flourishes like the one above. If the Southern Ocean is supposed to be one of these great carbon sinks and actual measurements show that it doesn't, does that mean that anything is wrong with the real world or just with the scientists hypotheses getting debunked by reality?

I don't know where you got that idea. Australia is already experiencing more severe droughts.

Australia is one of the many global regions experiencing significant climate change as a result of global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities. The average surface air temperature of Australia increased by 0.7 °C over the past century – warming that has been accompanied by marked declines in regional precipitation, particularly along the east and west coasts of the continent. These seemingly small changes have already had widespread consequences for Australia. Unfortunately, even if all GHG emissions ceased today, the Earth would still be committed to an additional warming of 0.2–1.0 °C by the end of the century.
Yet the momentum of the world’s fossil fuel economy precludes the elimination of GHG emissions over the near-term, and thus future global warming is likely to be well above 1 °C. Analysis of future emissions trajectories indicates that, left unchecked, human GHG emissions will increase several fold over the 21st century. As a consequence, Australia’s annual average temperatures are projected to increase 0.4–2.0 °C above 1990 levels by the year 2030, and 1–6 °C by 2070. Average precipitation in South-West and South-East Australia is projected to decline further in future decades, while regions such as the North-West may experience increases in precipitation. Meanwhile, Australia’s coastlines will experience erosion and inundation from an estimated 8–88 cm increase in global sea level.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html

Carbon dioxide never has caused temperature rise in the past, even when it was much higher than today. Its one of those "inconvenient truths" that neither AUP nor Capeldodgy will bother to explain.

I don't know where you get that idea. This particular topic has been gone over many times. CO2 can function as a feedback warming, or as a forcing. It just depends on the circumstances. As described by the IPCC, it's a forcing. CO2 *IS* a greenhouse gas, Schneibster made an excellent post on how that works, it's just basic physics. It's effect is small, but when you consider how sensitive a biological system is to temperature, it's significant. Just look at how well the human body copes with a temperature rise of 1C to see what I mean. The CO2 is also kicking off feedback effects, such as albedo changes. This is referred to as the enhanced greenhouse effect.

...

And I'll ignore the conspiracy theory rant. It is no different to the troofers or the id'ers.

Megalodon

24th May 2007, 01:40 AM

Oh and will I get a clue from other insightful posts like this one? Or will I get weak personal attacks if someone disagrees with your opinion?

Not an attack, merely an observation of facts. You'll know when I attack you.

I'll say upfront I am not a climate scientist.

It shows.

I do however have a degree in chemical engineering, am used to creating and interpreting simple models, perform some level of data analysis every day and have been interested in "global warming" since a skeptical college professor turned me onto it.

Good for you. Nothing like joining the outcast skeptical professor in a crusade against the hordes of CNN educated believer climate scientists... or something.

Before then I had been an uninformed, CNN educated believer.
Where do you get your lack of information now?

Now I read about it ALOT, everyday in fact. I think I have a clue.

"How much do you hate the romans?"
"ALOT!!"

Obviously what you think and reality are different things.

Can you say the same or are you, as I suspect, just a blow-hard?

1 Bachelor, 2 MSc, working on my PhD. Marine Biology, Marine Ecology, Coastal and Marine Studies, and Oceanography, respectively. My field of investigation has constantly been the carbon cycle in the oceans, and ultimately to get data to improve models, specially in what refers to the ability of oceans to trap atmospheric carbon.

You watch Al Gore's movie and all of a sudden you're an expert?

Twice wrong in such a short sentence. I didn't see Al Gore's movie, and I never claimed to be an expert.
I don't need to be one to realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

They are used interchangebly which is not technically accurate. Do you dispute that they are not the same? Go look it up you don't have to argue with me over it.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence. If you don't know the rules, don't play the game, kid.

Everything I have read about the models is that they are very inaccurate. Do you have a link that shows otherwise? I'll gladly read it.

You say they are innacurate, and don't provide links. I say they are reasonably accurate, and there are links plastered all over the thread arguing the same.

Wait. That's right, you're the guy who didn't read the thread, refused when asked to, and decided it was a personal attack... nevermind.

How can it be qualitatively accurate?

I thought you said you work with models. A model can reproduce a pattern of events precisely (for instance, predict an annual phytoplankton bloom in a coastal area) while being innacurate in the numbers (underestimating the primary production, or the bacterial production).

Can't argue with that. I would guess that they miss a lot more than just the feedbacks but also some of the main drivers.

I would guess that the depressing fairy wrote that for you, but guesses really don't cut it, do they.

The problem with these models (I ssume you mean GCMs) is that they can't test them. They are just computer simulations. They create them to recreate the results from data they input then hope they can accurately predict the future by extrapolating out.

Except that we have real world (you know, that thing you're ignoring) measurments that confirm the predictions of the models.

You have no clue, and you refuse to get one by simply reading the thread where you decided to share your ignorance.

Ignorance is fixable. Refusal to fix it is... depressing.

Belz...

24th May 2007, 05:32 AM

Stupid is depressing...

Indeed.

Harpoon

24th May 2007, 08:54 AM

I came across the JREF site last summer while looking up some historical material discussed on a different thread.

It's been about 15 years since I've read the 'Skeptical Inquirer' regularly, so at first James Randi's name didn't register.

The new JREF newsletter showed up in my inbox earlier this month and brought me back to the forum.

It was only then I connected JREF with 'The Amazing Randi.'

A dense fog enshrouds the public global warming debate. I was hoping to find some clarity here and have.

But although Randi has established the JREF Forum as a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a 'friendly and lively way,' the discussion here is full of the rancor that typifies the general debate.

The death of Asimov and untimely loss of Sagan are keenly felt. Both were capable of explaining the complexities of science to the general public.

Broad-based public support for the science behind global warming isn't going to be generated by devisive political figures, such as Mr. Gore, who has become the GW poster child.

Frustrating as it may be, advocates of the veracity of the climate models and supporting data will have to be patient and explain their position repeatedly in lieu of a scientific icon to bridge the gap.

It's certainly not a requirement or obligation of critical thinking or science to convince recalcitrant minds. But that's what will have be done before the public will be willing to make the needed sacrifices.

'Global Warming' isn't just a debate about science; it's a debate about public policy.

The global warming advocates may be winning the debate in scientific circles, although there's hardly conformity there. But a lot more convincing will be required in the public sector.

Denigrating others for their viewpoints, misinformed or not, doesn't bring us any closer to solutions.

CapelDodger

24th May 2007, 05:03 PM

A dense fog enshrouds the public global warming debate. I was hoping to find some clarity here and have.

Pleased to hear it.

But although Randi has established the JREF Forum as a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a 'friendly and lively way,' the discussion here is full of the rancor that typifies the general debate.

Frankly, I don't see the rancour. I was probably de-sensitised by the time I spent on the Politics forum, but all the same. Are you quitre sure you'r not seeing what you expected to see?

Broad-based public support for the science behind global warming isn't going to be generated by devisive political figures, such as Mr. Gore, who has become the GW poster child.

It's that sort of "poster-child" stuff that can ruffle some feathers. This is the Science forum; if you have a problem with Al Gore - and the "divisive" suggests that you do - take it to Politics. Here we discuss the science.

Frustrating as it may be, advocates of the veracity of the climate models and supporting data will have to be patient and explain their position repeatedly in lieu of a scientific icon to bridge the gap.

Waddaya gonna do?

It's certainly not a requirement or obligation of critical thinking or
science to convince recalcitrant minds.

Absolutely.

But that's what will have be done before the public will be willing to make the needed sacrifices.

Diverging from the science here, but the public will not be persuaded by the science they will be persuaded (or not) by politicians, lobbyists, columnists, and other practitioners of the persuasive arts. People such as Al Gore.

'Global Warming' isn't just a debate about science; it's a debate about public policy.

On this thread it is just a debate about the science.

The global warming advocates may be winning the debate in scientific circles, although there's hardly conformity there. But a lot more convincing will be required in the public sector.

The proles won't make sacrifices, they'll give up what's torn from their grip by events. "We", collectively, are screwed. The society that follows this one is also screwed. It's the human condition. All that changes is the immediacy.

Denigrating others for their viewpoints, misinformed or not, doesn't bring us any closer to solutions.

You may have found me patronising (I get that a lot) but I hope I haven't belittled you. If so, it was not my intent. Diamond is a very different matter, but there's a history there.

Harpoon

24th May 2007, 11:09 PM

You may have found me patronising (I get that a lot) but I hope I haven't belittled you. If so, it was not my intent. Diamond is a very different matter, but there's a history there.

No. And certainly not. Besides, I may need you to 'patronize' me in the future if I don't grasp something that should be obvious.

You decerned my angst about Gore. I'm troubled by scions of U.S. political families who believe they've been born into office -- thought we had a tiff with the King about that system a few years back.

I try to never be too sure that what I see is not just what I expected to see. Made that costly mistake a time or two over the years.

As for your history with Diamond, does JREF do Pay-per-View?

Harpoon

25th May 2007, 12:16 PM

Frankly, I don't see the rancour. I was probably de-sensitised by the time I spent on the Politics forum, but all the same...
On this thread it is just a debate about the science.
The proles won't make sacrifices, they'll give up what's torn from their grip by events. "We", collectively, are screwed. The society that follows this one is also screwed. It's the human condition. All that changes is the immediacy.

My use of the word rancor may well reflect the classic problems with personal perception. But I have mused if "New Blood" would be better changed to "Fresh Blood."

After my first postings, I believed an Alpha member or two prodded me to see if I was too diseased or weak to warrant participation. And if any wariness of "New Bloods" does exists, I'm sure it's a learned experience.

Canada Mint's first posting certainly lacked qualifiers as well as a lack of anything evidentiary. The reactions to that were sharp, but not inappropriate. CM's reaction seemed overly defensive to me. To post on any site demanding critical thinking will result in challenges, and a boron carbide hide is mandatory.

The entire exchange seemed retrogressive to the topic of the thread. But I haven't been vexed by having to repeat the same material to no effect, so I shouldn't judge others' level of patience. 'My bad,' as my grandson says when cornered.

I've erred in bringing in aspects of the global warming issue that are political, social or speculative and not scientific. I'll reform and refocus my posting, although I lack the expertise to analize primary research and must depend on secondary sources.

We ARE screwed by our consumptive impulses and rampant breeding. Climate change will certainly tighten that screw all the more.

Belz...

25th May 2007, 01:05 PM

We ARE screwed by our consumptive impulses and rampant breeding.

Pessimism isn't much better than optimism.

Alpha member

What the hell is that ? I find the reference to a wolfpack somewhat disturbing. You wouldn't be accusing people here of cult mentality, would you ? Or did I misunderstand your point altogether ?

Harpoon

25th May 2007, 07:27 PM

We ARE screwed by our consumptive impulses and rampant breeding. Climate change will certainly tighten that screw all the more.
Pessimism isn't much better than optimism.

Is your implication that pessimism is a little bit better than optimism? No matter. By 'screwed' I don't mean 'finished.' You'll have to check with CapelDodger for his nuance.

But continued breeding and expending finite resources or using renewable resources past their regenerative capacity poses as great a challenge to humankind's future as global warming, by my perspective.

Am I pessimistic? Maybe about future events, but not about our species' ability to survive them. Does 'screwed' sound like I meant extinction? That would certainly be screwed. I mean seriously screwed, but not that seriously screwed.

I think all the aforementioned pressures could well lead to the demise of a host of our institutions, and the loss of many lives, as well as the loss of ecosystems and species that were incompatible with the changes. But I believe humans and life on Earth would rebound, and existance on a warmer planet may have some benefits -- eventually (Please, no one think
I've even hinted that GW is a good thing, just that I believe our species will survive it).

After my first postings, I believed an Alpha member or two prodded me to see if I was too diseased or weak to warrant participation. And if any wariness of "New Bloods" does exists, I'm sure it's a learned experience.
What the hell is that ? I find the reference to a wolfpack somewhat disturbing. You wouldn't be accusing people here of cult mentality, would you? Or did I misunderstand your point altogether?

I made no reference to wolves. But if I had, you shouldn't be disturbed. It would have been complimentary. The wolf is an exquisite creature: highly adaptable, capable of organization and cooperation. While the alpha designation is indeed used in describing pack organization, it's also used referencing other species. Primatologists, such as Frans de Waal, uses the term alpha in describing chimpanzee hierarchy.

But I meant no comparison to other species, or cultist organizations.

Would "more-assertive, senior members" be less disturbing?

You questioned my use of "Alpha," but not my now-reworded premise that I was challenged by a few of the more-assertive, senior members in my early posts. It could have been totally because of content, but I suspected it reflected caution on the part of members who care about the forum and may be just a tad suspicious of newbies. Is "tad suspicous" overstated or totally incorrect -- I'll never win Randi's million bucks with my psi abilities so it's possible.

But re-read your now-slightly edited statement: "I find the reference to a wolfpack somewhat disturbing. You wouldn't be accusing people here of cult mentality, would you? Or did I misunderstand your point altogether?"

By deleting the "What the hell is that?" your statement questions my intent equally as well without being pugnacious.

That's the type of general rancor I observed, which CapelDodger said I may have misperceived or he may have become inurred to.

I enjoy a good dust-up for a reason, but I'd rather duke it out over substance than form.

CapelDodger

26th May 2007, 03:55 PM

As for your history with Diamond, does JREF do Pay-per-View?

You've pretty much seen it here; he darts in, spouts something that's been shredded repeatedly, makes a snide remark or two, drops a turd on Antarctica and pfffft! - gone again.

CapelDodger

26th May 2007, 04:38 PM

Is your implication that pessimism is a little bit better than optimism? No matter. By 'screwed' I don't mean 'finished.' You'll have to check with CapelDodger for his nuance.

My meaning is that our existing global society is going to be unsympathetically battered into a new shape over the coming decades. As you've pointed out, there are serious problems coming to a head even given a stable climate. The ending of one Age and the beginning of another.

I'm not an apocalyptic, although for a lot of people it might as well be. Dying in droves with no way out is as bad as it gets, and I don't doubt that will happen in some parts. What I don't see is scientific or technological regression. There'll be changes in attitudes and assumptions, though.

I was born in '54, so I'll be long gone before it all pans out. And I will have lived through interesting times :) .

Harpoon

26th May 2007, 06:29 PM

...What I don't see is scientific or technological regression. There'll be changes in attitudes and assumptions, though.

Can't fault a lad of your tender years for a little residue optimism.

I wish requirements in science classes weren't being reduced and that critical thinking and skepticism were being taught in our schools. Hope we can check the growing hoards of fundamentalist, religious zealots and nihilists.

Schneibster

27th May 2007, 01:53 AM

I haven't read all 11 pages of comments You should. But more importantly, you should read the scientific article rather than the popular media article, if you want to find out what the scientists are saying as opposed to what CNN says they're saying (and yes, they are rather different things).

Melting ice shelves do not prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure it even proves naturally occuring global warming.Sigh. Look, the evidence for AGW is comprehensive, interrelated, consistent, and overwhelming. We have CO2 measurements from many locations. Economics tells us how much coal and oil we're burning. We therefore have the total increase, and the amount of carbon we burn, and that pins it down pretty tightly. Then there's the fact that the carbon we dig up and burn doesn't have any C14 in it- and the C12:C14 ratio in the atmosphere is rising. This has been known since the 1950s. They've had to adjust radiocarbon dating for it. Then there's satellite data of at least five different kinds, all of which says it's getting warmer. There's temperature data going back more than a century. There's tree-ring data. There's ice cores. There's deep ocean cores. There's coral cores. And on, and on, and on, and it all says the same thing: it's getting warmer, and we're doing it. There isn't any argument among the scientists; they're arguing about whether it will take a decade, or two, or five, before we're really good and hosed, not about whether we will be in a century. Varwoche has compiled a list about two pages long of data on GW and AGW; it's essentially irrefutable.

It's also a straw man to pretend that anyone here who knows what they're talking about says that the ice retreat that this particular thread is about is "proof of AGW." It's not. The proof goes so far beyond that that you look like a complete n00b by saying so. And hey, look at that: you are a complete n00b. Just a suggestion: that crap might work elsewhere. This is a skeptics' board. You should probably take the time to find the twenty most popular logical fallacies and avoid them. Maybe it's just me.

Most people (and scientists apparently) confuse global warming, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. It all kind of gets grouped together.And this has the least slightest thing to do with what most members of a well-known skeptics' forum might or might not confuse because... ?

And you have been challenged to provide one single example of a climate scientist who has confusion about those terms. You have failed to do so, which is pretty much all there is to say.

Just because the Earth has gotten minimally warmer over the last 100 years does not prove that man caused it.Again, the evidence is comprehensive, interrelated, consistent, and overwhelming. If you want to discuss that evidence, another thread on that has come back up to the top 20. I suggest you read that entire thread before you run your yap anymore. You might actually learn something. Then again, that depends on your personal attributes, so you might not. That you have a great deal to learn is obvious; the question is, whether you're capable of it. Time will tell.

By the way, it's not a bad gig if you're models are wrong and you still get credit because you were trying to be "conservative".So, I guess we can all assume that you have absolutely no experience with error bars.

I read the article. It's light on science and heavy on doom and gloom which seems pretty popular with most people.Great big honkin' surprise, CNN writes an article to get people to pay attention to CNN. My goodness, whatever is the world coming to? Perhaps you'd care to read the actual evidence rather than someone's popularized and well-spun version of it.

Schneibster

27th May 2007, 02:03 AM

I wish requirements in science classes weren't being reduced and that critical thinking and skepticism were being taught in our schools. Hope we can check the growing hoards of fundamentalist, religious zealots and nihilists.Hear, hear. Try to find a course at any level in any primary school in the US that teaches the logical fallacies. I had to read a book by Rudolph Fleisch (The Art of Clear Thinking, if you're curious) to find out about them. Then you have the fundies who want to ignore biology, and the fact that the average person can't deal with fractions. Somehow, though, we muddle through; eventually, if the scientists keep saying the same thing over and over and over, it starts to get through to all but the most closed minds.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Schneibster

27th May 2007, 02:07 AM

I didn't see Al Gore's movie, I haven't either. I didn't see the point in watching a popular treatment of a subject I've done so much reading of the scientific literature on. I suspect the same might apply to you, Megalodon.

Lonewulf

27th May 2007, 03:43 AM

I find the reference to a wolfpack somewhat disturbing.

:(

a_unique_person

27th May 2007, 04:23 AM

I haven't either. I didn't see the point in watching a popular treatment of a subject I've done so much reading of the scientific literature on. I suspect the same might apply to you, Megalodon.

I haven't seen it either, which is why I wonder why some people make such a big deal about Gore.

Schneibster

27th May 2007, 04:27 AM

Because they're that particular type of skeptoid known as a conspiracy theorist.

Belz...

27th May 2007, 08:32 AM

Is your implication that pessimism is a little bit better than optimism? No matter. By 'screwed' I don't mean 'finished.' You'll have to check with CapelDodger for his nuance.

Sorry for the confusion. It isn't better at all. Worse, actually.

But continued breeding and expending finite resources or using renewable resources past their regenerative capacity poses as great a challenge to humankind's future as global warming, by my perspective.

It's the non-renewable ressources I'm worried about. People in general don't seem to realise that petroleum, for example, isn't only used for fueling cars.

But I meant no comparison to other species, or cultist organizations.

Would "more-assertive, senior members" be less disturbing?

It's less ambiguous, but I see I didn't misunderstand your meaning.

By deleting the "What the hell is that?" your statement questions my intent equally as well without being pugnacious.

Really ? For your information "What the hell is that?" is one of many ways of saying "I don't get that" with a question mark.

That's the type of general rancor I observed, which CapelDodger said I may have misperceived or he may have become inurred to.

If you think this is rancor, you've never seen me in a flame war.

Belz...

27th May 2007, 08:35 AM

:(

Don't worry. I don't find wolves disturbing, per se.

David Rodale

15th July 2007, 02:41 AM

Of course it is. All homeostatic processes are. The term "positive feedback" is not being used in the way you imply it is here. See, this is the problem with you, Diamond; every piece of evidence you present either turns out not to actually contradict what climate scientists are actually saying, or to be based on obsolete information, or to be plain flat not true. I will demonstrate; this is a case of the first kind. It's commonly referred to as a "straw man," that is, claiming that the opposing argument is something it is not, then disproving what you claim it is, not what it really is. It's generally recognized as a dishonest debating tactic.

You have it exactly backwards; in fact, the temperature rise during a transition from a glaciation to an interglacial cannot be accounted for without CO2, and the current temperature rise cannot be either. This is another straw man. In your presentation of the argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premises; but in reality, it does. Again, this is generally recognized as a dishonest debating tactic.

If you can account for the 1/3 of temperature rise during a glaciation-to-interglacial transition that is currently unexplained without CO2, then do so. For that matter, if you can account for the current temperature rise without it, then do so. But given the rest of the content of this post, you'll pardon me if I'm highly skeptical of your ability to do so.

Larsen B ice shelf collapse. Then there's:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060308.html
The satellite evidence is conclusive, not to mention the fact that it's now conclusive about Greenland and, the subject of this thread, the Arctic. I'll be charitable and attribute this to obsolete data.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/shsea.jpg
Data collection methods: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
Top hit on the google of "southern hemisphere temperature trend." Obsolete data here cannot be a supported conjecture; this data is over a year old. The sources for it go back decades.

Without CO2, glaciation-to-interglacial transitions (the exact scenario you are referring to here) would take twice as long (10KY vs. the observed 5KY) and the temperature increase would be 1/3 lower. If you can account for this without CO2, do so. You never have so far. You either have a profound misunderstanding of what the icecore data says, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

First, climate is not weather. Second, global warming is not 3 months ahead, it is twenty years ahead. So what you're basically saying is that if my car doesn't need oil tomorrow, it won't need oil in three months.

Third, the comparatively crude models from the 1980s and 1990s appear to have correctly predicted the current global average temperature- which amazingly enough is what they were constructed to do. (<-Sarcasm, for the impaired.) Fourth, all the current models predict the same thing, but the error bars are tighter. See the width of error bars in the most recent IPCC report, and contrast with previous ones.

That'll be enough to go on with, I think.

Climate is not weather. Climate models aren't made to predict regional temperature change and precipitation patterns over a period of months or a few years. They're made to predict climate over decades and centuries, and the historical record proves that they are accurate in doing so.

Please source this claim.

Please source this claim.

That's right, bury the fact that what it means is that not only is AGW happening, it's happening faster than we thought. And tell us some more about those models- all readers please note that this thread is not about models or predictions. It is about what's happening right now. But pay no attention to the facts; remember, you wouldn't want to be a member of the reality-based community, now would you?

So basically, what we see is a bunch of arguments about models, when the subject of the thread is data, and where you did make claims based in data, they all turned out to be, to be charitable, incorrect. Basically, you brought a knife to a gunfight. Which is about typical. Now, in classic Diamond driveby style, you'll never show up on this thread again, and never make any response to what I have shown here.

Facts, Diamond. The more we get, the more clear it becomes that you have no answer for them.

This poses a bit of a problem for your "brought a knife to a gunfight" analogy wouldn't you agree?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm
The dating can be debated, but the DNA evidence cannot. It looks like just about everything you've linked related to Greenland (proxies, climate models and other speculative "studies") can be thrown on the trash heap of obsolescence. So much for "unprecedented" warming.

You also made this claim in an earlier post in the same thread:
.....Clinton and Gore tried to do something about this in 1993, but the Republican Congress spent all the time we had to do something about this on investigating blowjobs, and then we got idiot frat-boi

and this:
We are screwed. We should have been doing something about this when Clinton and Gore tried to get something going in 1993.
The Republicans weren't in control of Congress until 1995. Clinton never submitted Kyoto to Congress for ratification as a 1997 test vote in the Senate of 98-0 (that means all Democrats too) opposing the treaty showed it would have gone down in flames. Nice try though.

Since you brought it up, shall we discuss climate model uncertainty? Or maybe a new thread is in order?

I may be a basement dweller as you once described me, but it appears you reside in an abandoned mine shaft.

Chuku

15th July 2007, 05:04 AM

The "Generic" concept of Global Warming is a MYTH.

I assert it's a gigantic con, there is so much money to be made from the "Concept" of Global Warming that it's absolutely staggering. Presidential candidates are simply leveraging the "Concept" of Global Warming as adopted and excepted by the masses to appeal to the masses. It's a part of every candidates agenda, the "Promise to the people", or as I call it, "The Pitch".

This subject is the oppertunist's bread and butter, anything for money. While the effects of what we call Global Warming are very real, understanding the duration and impact of these effects, is in reality, impossible to scientifically quantify. How do you quantify what you don't know? You make an assumption. Assumption is unfortunately the imperfection in science that cannot be debated, even scientifically.

No doubt SOME of the "Global Warming (GW)" data that has been collected is very real. No doubt we are seeing atmostspheric effects that directly correspond to this data. However, I ask of you, while a unit of measure may have been captured soundly and correctly, isn't this unit of measure's definition and value highly dependent on the theory correlated to the unit of measure?

As science greatly relies on specific logical assumptions, as the nature of the proverbial beast, opens a vast expanse of subjectivity, a dimension of variables with no binary data that can be reasonably derived.

With this said, isn't it possible that the effects that we're seeing can't be reasonably measured beyond the detection of trend? How are we to know that what we are seeing with GW hasn't happened in Earth's history before? Yes the "Industrial Age" arguement cannot be ignored, however, the TRUE effects of industrial polution are still completely unknown. We can calculate and theorize all we want, however, a YES or NO answer as to whether anything we do to combat against this supposed effect known as GW cannot be definitively proven. I know, I know, your point is? Isn't it only logical to err on the side of best practice and smarten up our environmental behavior? It's only going to benefit us. I agree. However, I don't agree that some of you feel that you will die from this, I don't agree that some of you feel your Grand Children will die or be adversely affected by this.

I do not believe the conditions we are seeing and attribute to GW today are conditions that haven't occurred before, I'm sorry, I don't. That said, I do think that the unknowns do merit attention and more eco friendly awareness and therefore reduction of gross polution to play it safe.

It is impossible to know what our earth was like in its infancy. Science doesn't know exactly how old the earth is. Which I find funny that we can assert that atmostsperic CO2 is at its highest in 650,000 years (I pulled this number from an exhibit I viewed at San Diego's Scripps Institute of Oceanography).

I find it funny how some of our record temperatures occured hundreds of years ago. I think we are a society suffering from the "Monster" we created known as the Internet. Mass data distribution throughout the world as we have never seen before. An ever increasing "War of the Worlds" effect.

The one given that we do know is mankind and other life have been here for a very long time and we're still here. Yes, this effect we call GW may have killed off our ancestors in the past, disease, you name it, but like cockroaches, man still keeps on. We have speculated for centuries about life before us, only assuming how our ancestors died off. Nonetheless, we have survived. I know, I know, "But we didn't have Jets then, we didn't have gross environmental pollution, we didn't generate the atmostspheric poison then that we do today". All fair arguements, however, we still don't know the TRUE impact of what these pollutions have done to this earth. Just as it is ignorant to ignore a "Greener" plant philosophy, it's worse to be an intelligent fool and commit yourself to an idea that has so many holes in it. Throwing data back and forth that is mostly HIGHLY subjective at best, is ridiculous. Let's just not make a greener planet mean let's make a bunch of oppertunists rich, let's be careful that a greener plant doesn't mean a dollar green plant. We don't know definitley the effects of the industrial age on the atmostsphere despite what you're reading and that's a fact. Time will tell whether any of our correction procedures alters the data observed today, however, the reality is that too much money rides on things that are "Bad" for the planet. By the time we make these devices more ATMOST friendly, we may still very well see what we're seeing today. Wouldn't that be something.

While I only make assertions here and certainly have very few answers for anyone that I can be sure of, please consider the various other perspectives regarding GW.

Like Feynman said, "I'm smart enough to know I'm dumb", just food for thought for some.

Please remember that if "G-D" was good enough for Einstein and that mind of his, he's good enough for me. I know, I know, most of you JREF folks are atheist or agnostics. Many of you look at Randi if he were a G-D, you speak like him, think like him, etc, etc. Have a little faith ;). Yes people, a little faith.

a_unique_person

15th July 2007, 06:47 AM

**** god.

mhaze

15th July 2007, 07:24 AM

This poses a bit of a problem for your "brought a knife to a gunfight" analogy wouldn't you agree?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm
The dating can be debated, but the DNA evidence cannot. It looks like just about everything you've linked related to Greenland (proxies, climate models and other speculative "studies") can be thrown on the trash heap of obsolescence. So much for "unprecedented" warming.

You also made this claim in an earlier post in the same thread:

and this:

The Republicans weren't in control of Congress until 1995. Clinton never submitted Kyoto to Congress for ratification as a 1997 test vote in the Senate of 98-0 (that means all Democrats too) opposing the treaty showed it would have gone down in flames. Nice try though.

Since you brought it up, shall we discuss climate model uncertainty? Or maybe a new thread is in order?

I may be a basement dweller as you once described me, but it appears you reside in an abandoned mine shaft.

I think it was a 95-0 vote. Also, Gore in a speech in 1997 said that Kyoto wasn't fair to the US and it was not good for us to sign it.

David, I have a question for you since you seem familiar with feedback processes and are capable of actual rational discussion. This is a very simplified version of the question, but you will get the drift.

Assume that the Earth's climate is known to be modulated by seasons (orbit), solar changes, CO2, just continue the list....

Now, as we come to understand these modulations, we reverse them out of the statistical record. At some point, do we reach a "quiet climate", a straight line for temperature?

Or are there continual and unpredicatable chaotic changes?

mhaze

15th July 2007, 07:41 AM

The "Generic" concept of Global Warming is a MYTH.

I assert it's a gigantic con, there is so much money to be made from the "Concept" of Global Warming that it's absolutely staggering.

Let's just not make a greener planet mean let's make a bunch of oppertunists rich, let's be careful that a greener plant doesn't mean a dollar green plant.

Have a little faith ;). Yes people, a little faith.

Hi Chuku. I see your point of view but still think it might be a bit unwise not to take some preparations. Like, for example you were on a boat and saw a storm off in the distance? Maybe furl the sails, right?

So here's A PLAN. All we need is about 30,000 carbon sequestration plants each of which pump 1 million tons of Co2 per year a mile deep into the ocean. That's roughly covering the west and east coast of the USA with these puppies at 1000 foot intervals, and employing a million laborers for ten years.

But we are talking projects here that do GOOD and cost tax dollars, right? So ignoring a bit the fact that what will really happen is that the "Tax dollars collected for global warming" will go to the same old welfare state causes and not anything actually useful, here is one detail of THE PLAN.

We need to be carbon neutral and earth friendly and all that. So once we start building these plants, we won't need a bunch of complaining, whining Greenies sitting in front of their computer screens generating flame wars in silly little internet forums.

They could be employed turning mill wheels, trudging around in circles all day to Dixie CHicks and Streisand music. These mill wheels would gear down about 16:1 and connect to generators to run welders for the 24" pipe sections. These Greenies would not be too happy at their new jobs but they would know in their hearts it was right, and Good for the Planet.

We sure would not want to run those welders with carbon emitting gasoline motors, right?:D

Diamond

15th July 2007, 07:46 AM

We have, but it just doesn't seem to take with you.

Past - how you do love to dwell in the past, don't you? The present is a bit scary - increases in CO2 have been climate-led. Ergo, CO2 increase follows warming and CO2 decline trails cooling. The current CO2 increase is not climate-driven, but is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, billions of tons of it annually. That's what is causing the current climate change. We are not living the past (try as some of us might), we are experiencing a completely novel modern phaenomenon.

Well since your miscomprehension of the present is overwhelmingly caused by your ignorance of the past, then I think its a fair strategy.

The present isn't in the slightest bit scary. It's neither particularly warm, dry, wet or cold. The current warming trend began 150 years before CO2 began to rise.

There's nothing novel about the current climate and still less novel are the failed prophecies of corrupt prophets that the current climate/ weather events are the portents of disaster - that's a game that's been played for 4000 years and probably longer.

Now since you're unable to produce any evidence of carbon dioxide warming the climate in the past, all we're left with is the empty rhetoric that this time its different from all of the others. You can't appeal to history because history, natch, debunks your claims.

So what do we have is the Capeldodgy trite syllogism: its warming and carbon dioxide is rising ergo carbon dioxide is causing the warming and we're all going to die in a flood/drought/fire/plague of frogs/nursing home/whatever.

Its not about the empty assertions of such a tactic designed to bore everyone into submission that has me on the edge of my sleeping bag, its that I have to use precious seconds of my lifetime waiting for you to produce something slightly better than:

The present is a bit scary - increases in CO2 have been climate-led. Ergo, CO2 increase follows warming and CO2 decline trails cooling.

So perhaps we'll see no more of these lies about us not answering your point. M'kay?

Your keyboard has produced words composed into sentences. Beyond that, actually answering with reference to facts appears to be beyond you.

On a different note, the discussion we were having about the Antarctic has been on pause for a while. Care to respond to my last contribution?

I am going to spend exactly zero time looking for a conversation that you cannot be bothered to link to.

mhaze

15th July 2007, 07:58 AM

The present isn't in the slightest bit scary.

But people can always be scared.

mhaze

15th July 2007, 08:40 AM

Schneibster

15th July 2007, 11:24 AM

Jebus will save us from teh evul globul wareming? All I see is that and a bunch of arguments from incredulity.

Chuku

15th July 2007, 12:51 PM

Hi Chuku. I see your point of view but still think it might be a bit unwise not to take some preparations. Like, for example you were on a boat and saw a storm off in the distance? Maybe furl the sails, right?

So here's A PLAN. All we need is about 30,000 carbon sequestration plants each of which pump 1 million tons of Co2 per year a mile deep into the ocean. That's roughly covering the west and east coast of the USA with these puppies at 1000 foot intervals, and employing a million laborers for ten years.

But we are talking projects here that do GOOD and cost tax dollars, right? So ignoring a bit the fact that what will really happen is that the "Tax dollars collected for global warming" will go to the same old welfare state causes and not anything actually useful, here is one detail of THE PLAN.

We need to be carbon neutral and earth friendly and all that. So once we start building these plants, we won't need a bunch of complaining, whining Greenies sitting in front of their computer screens generating flame wars in silly little internet forums.

They could be employed turning mill wheels, trudging around in circles all day to Dixie CHicks and Streisand music. These mill wheels would gear down about 16:1 and connect to generators to run welders for the 24" pipe sections. These Greenies would not be too happy at their new jobs but they would know in their hearts it was right, and Good for the Planet.

We sure would not want to run those welders with carbon emitting gasoline motors, right?:D

lol:D

Chuku

15th July 2007, 12:53 PM

varwoche

15th July 2007, 02:23 PM

The "Generic" concept of Global Warming is a MYTH.

I assert it's a gigantic con. The operative word is gigantic. If you are correct [loud guffaw] this is the mother of all CTs, and surely the CT section is where your whimsical post belongs.

Participants in this "gigantic con" (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/) are eminent scientists from: NOAA, NASA, MIT, Scripps, Woods Hole, Harvard, Columbia U., Hadley Centre, EPA, Harvard, Rutherford Appleton, World Radiation Centre, Bristol U., British Antarctic Survey, Planck Institute, U.Minnesota, US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Potsdam U., NCAR, McGill U., U.Colorado, U.Alaska, Florida St, US Dept of Energy, UC Santa Barbara, U.Texas, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat, Ohio St, Wageningen U., National Academy of Science, Penn St, Berkeley National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, U.Arizona, GRACE, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Brookhaven National Laboratory, U.Bergen, Livermore Laboratory, U.Washington, Rutgers, UC Santa Cruz, U. Southampton, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, U.Florida, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Ocean Data Center, Air Resources Laboratory, Brazil Institute for Space Research ... I could go on.

Schneibster

15th July 2007, 02:55 PM

No fair, varwoche, using, you know, evidence and stuff. :roll:

CapelDodger

15th July 2007, 03:21 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224469a302148322.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7041)

We got a little problem here This last 5 years doesn't show Global Warming...hey I know....let's just change the words... we'll fool them...

"Climate Change"

:rolleyes:

Who do you mean "we"? Who's doing the fooling? The gigantic conspiracy of scientists? Organic farmers? Marxists?

2007 looks set to be warmer than 2005, which was at best only slightly cooler than 1998 (the year of the strongest El Nino of the 20thCE). 2005 was the second warmest year on record. Where do you discern this absence of global waming?

The term "Climate Change" is hardly newly minted, but I'm not sure who introduced it. It's the preferred term in Bush's White House, but I suppose they could be part of the conspiracy. Almost everybody else is, after all.

mhaze

15th July 2007, 03:35 PM

Who do you mean "we"? Who's doing the fooling? The gigantic conspiracy of scientists? Organic farmers? Marxists?

2007 looks set to be warmer than 2005, which was at best only slightly cooler than 1998 (the year of the strongest El Nino of the 20thCE). 2005 was the second warmest year on record. Where do you discern this absence of global waming?

The term "Climate Change" is hardly newly minted, but I'm not sure who introduced it. It's the preferred term in Bush's White House, but I suppose they could be part of the conspiracy. Almost everybody else is, after all.

Could it have been a conspiracy since the 1950s? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8) Inquiring minds would like to know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8

Schneibster

15th July 2007, 04:22 PM

"Don't bother me with evidence, my mind's made up." That's what it boils down to. You know, I actually go look when someone presents what appears to be a substantial piece of evidence contradicting AGW; I'd say that's more than any of the skeptoids do. Unfortunately, I always find the same things; lies, innuendo, political agendas, payoffs, logic-chopping, and "evidence" that a three-year-old would dismiss (unless using it to try to "prove" she didn't steal any of those cookies, no sirree).

CapelDodger

15th July 2007, 04:42 PM

The "Generic" concept of Global Warming is a MYTH.

The science of the Greenhouse Effect is well-understood and established. Without it the planet would over 30C colder than it is. CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, and we've increased it by about a third in the las century or so. That's a physical fact that is having physical effects.

I assert it's a gigantic con, there is so much money to be made from the "Concept" of Global Warming that it's absolutely staggering. Presidential candidates are simply leveraging the "Concept" of Global Warming as adopted and excepted by the masses to appeal to the masses. It's a part of every candidates agenda, the "Promise to the people", or as I call it, "The Pitch".

I assert that the War on Terror is a gigantic con, there is so much money being made from the concept both in Homeland Security and in Iraq that it's really worth finding a free teat. Presidential candidates are simply leveraging the threat of terrorism as observed by, and exaggerated to, the masses to get their votes. It's part of every candidate's agenda.

This subject is the oppertunist's bread and butter, anything for money. While the effects of what we call Global Warming are very real, understanding the duration and impact of these effects, is in reality, impossible to scientifically quantify. How do you quantify what you don't know? You make an assumption. Assumption is unfortunately the imperfection in science that cannot be debated, even scientifically.

You quantify what you don't know by using what you do know to make an estimate. Then, if you get the opportunity, you check the estimate against new observations. In the case of AGW there has been a chance to compare the estimates, and they're good. There's no obvious reason why that should change, except insofar as they improve with time.

No doubt SOME of the "Global Warming (GW)" data that has been collected is very real. No doubt we are seeing atmostspheric effects that directly correspond to this data. However, I ask of you, while a unit of measure may have been captured soundly and correctly, isn't this unit of measure's definition and value highly dependent on the theory correlated to the unit of measure?

:confused:

The impact AGW is of concern, not how it's measured. That impact will mostly be brought to us via the atmosphere, which is where weather happens. Which is not to ignore the impact of oceanic warming, which we're also seeing.

As science greatly relies on specific logical assumptions, as the nature of the proverbial beast, opens a vast expanse of subjectivity, a dimension of variables with no binary data that can be reasonably derived

With this said, isn't it possible that the effects that we're seeing can't be reasonably measured beyond the detection of trend?.

You're just whistling as you pass the graveyard at night, aren't you?

How are we to know that what we are seeing with GW hasn't happened in Earth's history before? Yes the "Industrial Age" arguement cannot be ignored, however, the TRUE effects of industrial polution are still completely unknown. We can calculate and theorize all we want, however, a YES or NO answer as to whether anything we do to combat against this supposed effect known as GW cannot be definitively proven. I know, I know, your point is? Isn't it only logical to err on the side of best practice and smarten up our environmental behavior? It's only going to benefit us. I agree. However, I don't agree that some of you feel that you will die from this, I don't agree that some of you feel your Grand Children will die or be adversely affected by this.

Nobody needs your agreement to feel that their offspring will be adversely affected by AGW. Nobody even cares what you agree with.

I do not believe the conditions we are seeing and attribute to GW today are conditions that haven't occurred before, I'm sorry, I don't. That said, I do think that the unknowns do merit attention and more eco friendly awareness and therefore reduction of gross polution to play it safe.

I'd already twigged that you do belief in a big way. Let us know how that works out for you.

It is impossible to know what our earth was like in its infancy. Science doesn't know exactly how old the earth is. Which I find funny that we can assert that atmostsperic CO2 is at its highest in 650,000 years (I pulled this number from an exhibit I viewed at San Diego's Scripps Institute of Oceanography).

That information can be obtained from ice-cores. Freshly fallen snow contains air; if more snow accumulates the snow eventually becomes ice and the air is trapped. In some places this process has been going on continuously for more than 650,000 years, which is why we can ascertain atmospheric composition accurately from way before the evolution of HomSap. Scientists are very ingenious en masse, and Engineers even more so.

I find it funny how some of our record temperatures occured hundreds of years ago. I think we are a society suffering from the "Monster" we created known as the Internet. Mass data distribution throughout the world as we have never seen before. An ever increasing "War of the Worlds" effect.

A recent poll in the UK indicates that 56% of the population think AGW is still scientifically controversial. I doubt it's less than that in the US. Hardly evidence of mass hysteria, is it?

You'll surely have noticed that the InterNet is not short of anti-AGW sites. It's a common carrier. The only effect it's had in the academic world is that papers that would once have been confined to printed material are now available online.

The one given that we do know is mankind and other life have been here for a very long time and we're still here. Yes, this effect we call GW may have killed off our ancestors in the past, disease, you name it, but like cockroaches, man still keeps on. We have speculated for centuries about life before us, only assuming how our ancestors died off.

HomSap has been around for about one-and-half ice-ages, most of it spent in Africa and the tropics where at least the ice wasn't a problem. We've seen climate change, but with simple and adaptable lifestyles. Even so, we nearly bought it with the Toba eruption about 70,000 years ago which brought on a rapid, though short-lived, change in climate.

Agricultural society has never experienced the rapid climate change on a continuing global scale that we've launched ourselves into because we knew no better. That's a society of 6+ billion that is not simple or adaptable.

Nonetheless, we have survived.

No doubt the species will ride it out, in much reduced numbers.

Please remember that if "G-D" was good enough for Einstein and that mind of his, he's good enough for me. I know, I know, most of you JREF folks are atheist or agnostics. Many of you look at Randi if he were a G-D, you speak like him, think like him, etc, etc. Have a little faith ;). Yes people, a little faith.

If some petty god had been good enough for Einstein he wouldn't have looked to higher things, such as mathematics and physics and all the wonderful things that are real.

We have great respect and liking for The Amazing Randi because he deserves it. We don't speak like him but we, like him, do think.

If "God will provide" is good enough for you, fair enough. Given that there are elimination rounds ahead it's in nobody's interest to argue you out of it. Quite the opposite.

CapelDodger

15th July 2007, 05:50 PM

Well since your miscomprehension of the present is overwhelmingly caused by your ignorance of the past, then I think its a fair strategy.

I'm pretty good with the historical past, it's my main interest. I see the present as the past still happening, and the future in much the same vein. I'm not the sort of tyro that assigns, say, the failure of the Norse colonies in Greenland and North America to a single factor, such as climate change. It's far more interesting than that

The present isn't in the slightest bit scary. It's neither particularly warm, dry, wet or cold. The current warming trend began 150 years before CO2 began to rise.

Hey, the current cooling trend started nine years ago. Have you sold out or something?

It got damn' cold in the 19thCE, and the rise in CO2 was noticed during that same century. It's hard to cram 150 years into a single century.

The current global climate is particularly warm. It's melting permafrost that hasn't melted since the Younger Dryas.

There's nothing novel about the current climate and still less novel are the failed prophecies of corrupt prophets that the current climate/ weather events are the portents of disaster - that's a game that's been played for 4000 years and probably longer.

That is scraping the barrel. Equating scientists with "corrupt prophets".

Now since you're unable to produce any evidence of carbon dioxide warming the climate in the past, all we're left with is the empty rhetoric that this time its different from all of the others. You can't appeal to history because history, natch, debunks your claims.

You have been repeatedly presented with the evidence of CO2 causing warming in the past but your ever-repeated response is that warming preceded the CO2 increase ergo CO2 does not cause warming. Here it is again : on those occasions the increased CO2 was an effect of warming by other means, but it then caused further warming. Increased CO2 was not the driving force of the warming, but it had a positive-feedback effect. The physical processes behind this are well-understood.

So what do we have is the Capeldodgy trite syllogism: its warming and carbon dioxide is rising ergo carbon dioxide is causing the warming and we're all going to die in a flood/drought/fire/plague of frogs/nursing home/whatever.

Warming following increases in CO2 were predicted on the basis of soundly-based science, and the observed outcome confirms the science.

Its not about the empty assertions of such a tactic designed to bore everyone into submission that has me on the edge of my sleeping bag, its that I have to use precious seconds of my lifetime waiting for you to produce something slightly better than:

The present is a bit scary - increases in CO2 have been climate-led. Ergo, CO2 increase follows warming and CO2 decline trails cooling.

You said
Carbon dioxide never has caused temperature rise in the past, even when it was much higher than today. Its one of those "inconvenient truths" that neither AUP nor Capeldodgy will bother to explain.

and I said
Past - how you do love to dwell in the past, don't you? The present is a bit scary - increases in CO2 have been climate-led. Ergo, CO2 increase follows warming and CO2 decline trails cooling. The current CO2 increase is not climate-driven, but is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, billions of tons of it annually. That's what is causing the current climate change. We are not living the past (try as some of us might), we are experiencing a completely novel modern phaenomenon.

Perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but you had to be there at the time ... which was a while ago.

You constantly repeat the mantra that CO2 increase has followed warming by other means ergo CO2 increase does not cause warming. What you can't seem to grasp is that the current CO2 increase is artificial, so these previous examples have no bearing. There is no historical example of a species digging up and burning sequestered carbon in a manner so determined and targeted that it increases atmospheric CO2 by a third. (Not to mention the acidification of the oceans.)

Your keyboard has produced words composed into sentences. Beyond that, actually answering with reference to facts appears to be beyond you.

I struggle on.

I am going to spend exactly zero time looking for a conversation that you cannot be bothered to link to.

Hey, I had to look up my own response to your last drive-by. No link provided there, I notice. My reference was current at the time, I'm sure. It may have been about regions that are cooling that aren't Central Antarctica; I've been trying to get specifics on that for some time.

a_unique_person

15th July 2007, 05:56 PM

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224469a302148322.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7041)

We got a little problem here This last 5 years doesn't show Global Warming...hey I know....let's just change the words... we'll fool them...

"Climate Change"

:rolleyes:

Hang on, it was the anti global warmers in the US who thought up the phrase Climate Change, since it was supposed to sound less threatening than Global Warming. Don't hang that spin attack on the AGW camp.

And that graph is cherry picking at it's finest, since 1998 was a huge jump in global temperature. If the warming had continued at that pace every year, the would be be heading for a Venus meltown.

mhaze

15th July 2007, 08:51 PM

I have no idea where the "climate change" buzzword came from.

But how can just making a chart of the last couple years be cherry picking? Don't think so.

Diamond

16th July 2007, 03:57 AM

I'm pretty good with the historical past, it's my main interest. I see the present as the past still happening, and the future in much the same vein. I'm not the sort of tyro that assigns, say, the failure of the Norse colonies in Greenland and North America to a single factor, such as climate change. It's far more interesting than that

It is far more interesting that that. They were also attacked by the Inuit. But the major cause was that the climate turned on them viciously.

Did you know that the Viking instructions on how to reach the colony changed in the 13th Century to a longer and more difficult path because of ice walls blocking the way? That that ice is still blocking the more direct way?

No. Because ignorance is clearly a point of view for you that trumps everything else.

Hey, the current cooling trend started nine years ago. Have you sold out or something?

We don't know that. Unlike certain people I don't make a claim that 9 years represents a major climatic trend. Climate changes all the time, which is where your analysis falls down, because only warming signals pass the Capeldodgy filter.

It got damn' cold in the 19thCE, and the rise in CO2 was noticed during that same century. It's hard to cram 150 years into a single century.

The warming began from the nadir of the 17th Century at the end of the Maunder Minimum, not the 19th. From that nadir the Central England temperature rose 3 degrees in less than 30 years (global warming, anyone?). All of which without the increase in greenhouse gases that are apparently so vital.

How fascinating it is that once again, despite overwhelming proof of its falsity, you present the Hockey Stick version of climate history. You can't get away from it, can you? It's clearly a totem of great power for climate alarmists.

The current global climate is particularly warm. It's melting permafrost that hasn't melted since the Younger Dryas.

Rubbish. The permafrost has been melting and freezing for thousands of years. Certainly the permafrosts melted during the much warmer Holocene Optimum, as well as the Roman Warm and Medieval Warm Periods.

That is scraping the barrel. Equating scientists with "corrupt prophets".

Nope, Just the corrupt climate modellers that claim to be able to project/predict climate change one hundred years into the future, yet cannot predict climate even 3 months ahead better than tossing a coin.

You have been repeatedly presented with the evidence of CO2 causing warming in the past but your ever-repeated response is that warming preceded the CO2 increase ergo CO2 does not cause warming. Here it is again : on those occasions the increased CO2 was an effect of warming by other means, but it then caused further warming. Increased CO2 was not the driving force of the warming, but it had a positive-feedback effect. The physical processes behind this are well-understood.

Again, empty rhetoric doesn't help at all.

The icecores shows CO2 and methane following temperature rise by at least 6 centuries and anything up to 14 centuries. They show no feedback at all - that is, the temperature rise does not increase as the carbon dioxide and methane increase.

So once again you produce a mythical interpretation of climate history and reproduce it as fact.

Fact: There was a Medieval Warm Period recorded in proxies right around the world

Fact: Carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise consistently by many centuries.

Fact: Carbon dioxide does not cause temperature rise, nor increase the rate of warming.

Fiction: Capeldodgy knows what he's talking about.

Warming following increases in CO2 were predicted on the basis of soundly-based science, and the observed outcome confirms the science.

The observed outcome is to attempt to rewrite the past according to a hypothesis that has repeatedly failed empirical tests. Climate models are not proof of anything, other than some people's will to believe in them.

You constantly repeat the mantra that CO2 increase has followed warming by other means ergo CO2 increase does not cause warming. What you can't seem to grasp is that the current CO2 increase is artificial, so these previous examples have no bearing. There is no historical example of a species digging up and burning sequestered carbon in a manner so determined and targeted that it increases atmospheric CO2 by a third. (Not to mention the acidification of the oceans.)

You don't grasp the concept of spurious correlation between variables nor the well known statement in logic that correlation does not imply causation. Instead you jump from one poorly understood concept in science to another desperately grasping at whatever straw of climate history draws your attention.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not drive temperature rise - it never has. Carbon dioxide levels have generally been at lot higher in the geological past than they are today, and yet somehow species that evolved in such climes managed to survive the ocean acidification (actually the slight loss of alkalinity would be a better statement) that must have happened. Much higher carbon dioxide levels were recorded during known Ice Ages.

Once again you grasp at any floating straw of a single datum and claim that the world today is unprecedented in X years when its nothing of the sort.

You deny history and then claim that history informs your reasoning. I call BS.

JoeEllison

16th July 2007, 05:16 AM

Nope, Just the corrupt climate modellers that claim to be able to project/predict climate change one hundred years into the future, yet cannot predict climate even 3 months ahead better than tossing a coin.

Maybe, before climbing up on your "I know more than all those damned scientists " high horse, you should learn the difference between "climate" and "weather". I mean, just for kicks. :cool:

Cheesejoff

16th July 2007, 05:22 AM

I have no idea where the "climate change" buzzword came from.

But how can just making a chart of the last couple years be cherry picking? Don't think so.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,906978,00.html

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

...The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says...

Here is a PDF file of the leaked memo: http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/3/luntz.zip

mhaze

16th July 2007, 06:23 AM

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming[/URL]

Nonsense.

It's the Evil Republican conspiracy now?

Here's a budding scientist's website who has a more scientific and balanced view than your conspiracy theorists.

And she is 15 years old! (http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/3/luntz.zip)

[url]http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

Diamond

16th July 2007, 07:04 AM

Maybe, before climbing up on your "I know more than all those damned scientists " high horse, you should learn the difference between "climate" and "weather". I mean, just for kicks. :cool:

Perhaps you'd like to inform Dr Jim Renwick of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) when he writes of his climate model achieving a 48% accuracy for climate predictions 3 months ahead:

“Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.”

He's talking about climate and not weather. His models contain no weather events (like all climate models), but even on that scale its no better than flipping a coin.

Oh and by the way, Dr Renwick is no lightweight. He was a lead author on Working Group I of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and serves on the World Meteorological Organisation Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting. I think he knows the difference between weather and climate.

So perhaps you'd like to educate yourself on the difference between predicting climate and predicting weather, and let us all benefit from the relief of your ignorance at some future time. But do it just for kicks.

JoeEllison

16th July 2007, 07:11 AM

You prove my point exactly. Thanks a bunch!:)

Diamond

16th July 2007, 07:33 AM

You prove my point exactly. Thanks a bunch!:)

You mean, you know better than the climate modellers as to what constitutes climate?

Fine by me.

mhaze

16th July 2007, 08:36 AM

The operative word is gigantic. If you are correct [loud guffaw] this is the mother of all CTs, and surely the CT section is where your whimsical post belongs.

Participants in this gigantic con (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/) are eminent scientists from: NOAA, NASA, MIT, Scripps, Woods Hole, Harvard, Columbia U., Hadley Centre, EPA, Harvard, Rutherford Appleton, World Radiation Centre, Bristol U., British Antarctic Survey, Planck Institute, U.Minnesota, US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Potsdam U., NCAR, McGill U., U.Colorado, U.Alaska, Florida St, US Dept of Energy, UC Santa Barbara, U.Texas, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat, Ohio St, Wageningen U., National Academy of Science, Penn St, Berkeley National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, U.Arizona, GRACE, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Brookhaven National Laboratory, U.Bergen, Livermore Laboratory, U.Washington, Rutgers, UC Santa Cruz, U. Southampton, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, U.Florida, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Ocean Data Center, Air Resources Laboratory, Brazil Institute for Space Research ... I could go on.

Yes, why don't you go on? I can help a bit here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14224469b7dda64947.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7052)

Gosh. It seems to have ran off the runway.

Gee. You mean that's Bon Jovi's private jet there?

The same Bon Jovi in Gore's Live Earth?

The list does indeed need to grow longer.:D

By way of background, the Boeing 707 Aircraft is essentially obselete due to very, very poor fuel economy. That means you can buy them very cheap, but you are going to pay out the nose for fuel. Guess Bon Jovi really doesn't care about those little details. Besides not being able to get a plane on the ground:rolleyes:

Don't forget - big global warming opportunities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc) yet to be explored.

The business of gloom and doom is all rather exciting isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc

Cheesejoff

16th July 2007, 09:07 AM

Nonsense.

It's the Evil Republican conspiracy now?

Actually it's been the "Evil Republican" party for 3 years, if you care to look at the date on the article. There's also a 160 page pdf document to back it up, if you care for evidence.

Then again, you might just decide to ignore the evidence and scream nonsense about conspiracy theorists.

It's ironic of you to shout about conspiracies, because essentially you're saying the majority of scientific establishments are conspiring. I'm only pointing out the evidence suggests the term "climate change" was coined by Republicans (actually, according to another source it was coined in 1990 by oil company lobbyists, although the article is to old to access online)

*edit*

Your point about Bon Jovi has nothing to do with conspiracy. Hypocrisy, lies and conspiracy are often related but they are not the same.

Bon Jovi puts on a show of being 'green' to boost popularity, when in reality he's not green. So he's a hypocrit. He's also a liar, as he either doesn't care about global warming, or he believes it isn't caused by humans (presumably he's publically said otherwise)

No conspiracy involved.

mhaze

16th July 2007, 09:17 AM

Actually it's been the "Evil Republican" party for 3 years, if you care to look at the date on the article. There's also a 160 page pdf document to back it up, if you care for evidence.

Then again, you might just decide to ignore the evidence and scream nonsense about conspiracy theorists.

It's ironic of you to shout about conspiracies, because essentially you're saying the majority of scientific establishments are conspiring. I'm only pointing out the evidence suggests the term "climate change" was coined by Republicans (actually, according to another source it was coined in 1990 by oil company lobbyists, although the article is to old to access online)

*edit*

Your point about Bon Jovi has nothing to do with conspiracy. Hypocrisy, lies and conspiracy are often related but they are not the same.

Bon Jovi puts on a show of being 'green' to boost popularity, when in reality he's not green. So he's a hypocrit. He's also a liar, as he either doesn't care about global warming, or he believes it isn't caused by humans (presumably he's publically said otherwise)

No conspiracy involved.

My apologies if I sounded rude or abrupt. I read your attached pdf and clearly understand that Republications used and use the phrase "climate change". But I don't see where they originated it.

If they did, that's fine with me. I just did not see clearly that was the case. Often this sort of a question is solved by a Lexus/Nexus word or phrase search which may lead back to the first popularization of a phrase. I don't subscribe to that service.

Cheesejoff

16th July 2007, 09:29 AM

My apologies if I sounded rude or abrupt. I read your attached pdf and clearly understand that Republications used and use the phrase "climate change". But I don't see where they originated it.

If they did, that's fine with me. I just did not see clearly that was the case. Often this sort of a question is solved by a Lexus/Nexus word or phrase search which may lead back to the first popularization of a phrase. I don't subscribe to that service.

Actually, I must apologise as well. Republicans did not invent the term. According to the book "Unspeak" by Steven Poole;

"...states with oil interests, specifically Saudi Arabia and the United States, had specifically lobbied for the elimination of the phrase global warming in (United Nations) agreements."

The sources are two articles from 1990, which I can't find online. So I guess we can't prove who invented the term.

CapelDodger

16th July 2007, 03:27 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,906978,00.html

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

...The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says...

Here is a PDF file of the leaked memo: http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/3/luntz.zip

Thanks for that, Cheesejoff, I had a vague memory of that but it was abit late for fact-checking. It does put mhaze's "...let's just change the words... we'll fool them..." in its proper context.

CapelDodger

16th July 2007, 04:01 PM

Yes, why don't you go on? I can help a bit here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14224469b7dda64947.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7052)

Gosh. It seems to have ran off the runway.

Gee. You mean that's Bon Jovi's private jet there?

The same Bon Jovi in Gore's Live Earth?

The list does indeed need to grow longer.:D

:confused:

I think you'll find, in retrospect, that this is a non sequitur or something very similar. Were you just itching to get it out there and hung it on an available hook, however inappropriate?

The list of scientific institutions that explicitly endorse AGW is exceeding long. Much against their will, most governments (there'll always be Poland) and political parties have come to the same conclusion. Not because that's the way popular opinion has gone - see the 56% in the UK who still think AGW is scientifically controversial - but because they've been persuaded that it's what their countries are facing. Not just in the very long term, but during the careers of many politicans active today.

This is not to say that they're eager to do anything about it, but they want to seem to be taking it seriously. Then, later in their careers, they can blame the failure to act on their opponents. And the media, of course. Always blame the media.

Interestingly, most contrarian scientists are near or beyond the ends of their careers, defending position they took up decades ago. When their error becomes incontrovertible there'll be no consequences for them. Science being a well-meaning culture, they'll be remembered for their early work - such as Singer's debunking of the Surgeon General's pronouncements on the health-risks of smoking. He was proven right there - my grandfather smoked twenty or more Capstan Full-Strength a day (when "Full-Strength" was a selling-point) from age 14, him being a sea-going man and snooker-player, and died of death at the age of 82. Which goes to show.

CapelDodger

16th July 2007, 06:28 PM

It is far more interesting that that. They were also attacked by the Inuit. But the major cause was that the climate turned on them viciously.

Did you know that the Viking instructions on how to reach the colony changed in the 13th Century to a longer and more difficult path because of ice walls blocking the way? That that ice is still blocking the more direct way?

I've read extensively on the Norse, and haven't come across reference to these Icelandic rutters. Can you point me at a source? Seems to me they'd just go south of any ice-sheets they ran into, they'll have varied with wind, weather and season. From Iceland to the Greenland colonies you just head south-west until you spot mountain-tops to the north-west, turn westward, and follow the coast when you find it.

(The Norse wouldn't have used these absolute directions, they'd have referred to "ayrts" which are eight divisions of the full compass, centred on N, NE, E SE, etc.. They wouldn't sail "south-west", they'd sail "into the south-west ayrt". The shipmaster would know which part of it was best.)

No. Because ignorance is clearly a point of view for you that trumps everything else.

You're a very angry and unpleasant person, aren't you? Were you called names at school or something? Whatever it is, you should get over it.

We don't know that. Unlike certain people I don't make a claim that 9 years represents a major climatic trend. Climate changes all the time, which is where your analysis falls down, because only warming signals pass the Capeldodgy filter.

Are there contemporary cooling signals I'm missing?

The warming began from the nadir of the 17th Century at the end of the Maunder Minimum, not the 19th. From that nadir the Central England temperature rose 3 degrees in less than 30 years (global warming, anyone?).

Central England warming, I'd have thought, and you seem very certain of it's magnitude, 3 degrees something. What's the source for that? Presumably not proxy measurements, they wouldn't be so geographically specific. And anyway, proxy measurements are what the climate reconstructions you object to are based on. Multiple instrumental observations, with the instruments of the day? Perhaps just one? Recorded on what temperature scale - Fahrenheit did his work in the 18thCE, Celsius somewhat later.

You'll appreciate my scepticism about historical climate claims, given the education on the subject I've been given by McIntyre et al.

All of which without the increase in greenhouse gases that are apparently so vital.

As you may be aware, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Any warming, for whatever reason, will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapour. This increase will act as a positive feedback on the original forcing. The same applies in reverse.

So this warming you refer to will indeed have involved an increase in at least one greenhouse gas over Central England in the late 17thCE. This period also witnessed - in Central England - a marked increase in livestock, for reasons quite unrelated to climate, and the inevitable increase in methane - another greenhouse gas. It was in the 18th century that the British as beef-eating freemen (as opposed to cheese-eating French peasants) became entrenched. That's a lot of cow-fart.

There was a rapid increase in urbanisation in Central England at the time, not unrelated to the increase in cow-fart.

How fascinating it is that once again, despite overwhelming proof of its falsity, you present the Hockey Stick version of climate history. You can't get away from it, can you? It's clearly a totem of great power for climate alarmists.

"Alarmist" is not a charm to ward off the evil eye. (Tu ora en ma cule works for that.) It isn't alarmist to accept well-established science and give credence to its predictions, especially when I've watched them unfold for decades. I was very sceptical of any observable impact of AGW back in the 70's, as were most scientifically educated people. We'd grown up in the scientific culture developed from the late-18thCE (geology) through Darwin to everything else. Gradualist, anti-catastrophic, and humans should get over themselves. The idea that we could, short of a full MAD nuclear exchange, affect the climate seemed hubristic.

I've been persuaded otherwise by events and deeper study of the science.

Rubbish. The permafrost has been melting and freezing for thousands of years. Certainly the permafrosts melted during the much warmer Holocene Optimum, as well as the Roman Warm and Medieval Warm Periods.

Areas of permafrost that did not melt during any of these events are melting now. One reason why it was noticed was that these are the regions of long-term accumulation, since the last glacial retreat - obviously, every glacial advance scours the permafrost record clean - that can tell us most about the Holocene climate. There aren't any breaks. The same won't be true in the future; future researchers will find a definite break at this period.

Nope, Just the corrupt climate modellers that claim to be able to project/predict climate change one hundred years into the future, yet cannot predict climate even 3 months ahead better than tossing a coin.

Of course, they do nothing of the sort, but what do you care? You've been flipping that coin for a long time, and it's never come up "cooling". Maybe next quarter?

varwoche has blessed us with one of his esteemed lists of highly reputable scientific institutions that explicitly endorse the reality of AGW, and there's no sign of grass-roots rebellion by the members their boards represent. You compare this with corner-preachers who con pennies from passers-by when there's a comet in the sky. That would just be sad if it wasn't so offensive.

Again, empty rhetoric doesn't help at all.

In that case, nothing can help you.

The icecores shows CO2 and methane following temperature rise by at least 6 centuries and anything up to 14 centuries. They show no feedback at all - that is, the temperature rise does not increase as the carbon dioxide and methane increase.

Does the global temperature stop increasing when increased CO2 manifests? Nope. And do not the CO2 and global temperature continue to rise in tandem? They surely do. So how do you distinguish from this that increased atmospheric CO2 - and decreased oceanic CO2 - has no influence on the climate?

So once again you produce a mythical interpretation of climate history and reproduce it as fact.

Fact: There was a Medieval Warm Period recorded in proxies right around the world

Fact: Carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise consistently by many centuries.

Fact: Carbon dioxide does not cause temperature rise, nor increase the rate of warming.

Fiction: Capeldodgy knows what he's talking about.

I think I've just been promoted to +2 Grand Dragon in The Conspiracy. I hadn't expected that before 2012.

Diamond

17th July 2007, 02:43 AM

I've read extensively on the Norse, and haven't come across reference to these Icelandic rutters. Can you point me at a source? Seems to me they'd just go south of any ice-sheets they ran into, they'll have varied with wind, weather and season. From Iceland to the Greenland colonies you just head south-west until you spot mountain-tops to the north-west, turn westward, and follow the coast when you find it.

(The Norse wouldn't have used these absolute directions, they'd have referred to "ayrts" which are eight divisions of the full compass, centred on N, NE, E SE, etc.. They wouldn't sail "south-west", they'd sail "into the south-west ayrt". The shipmaster would know which part of it was best.)

Well they didn't do so. Here's what I received from Reid Bryson, the grand poobah of modern climatology:

When the Vikings settled part of Greenland circa 900 CE, they established a settlement that lasted longer than the United States has been around. There was a considerable amount of traffic between Greenland and Europe, by the standards of the time, so some skippers were making their first trip. The directions were, at first, to sail two and a half days west from Iceland to the shore of Greenland where there stood the landmark Blasark (black shirt) Mountain. Then sail down the coast to Eriksfjord, a beautiful broad straight passage across southern Greenland. Reaching the west coast they should turn right up the coast to the navigation marker on Herjolf’s Ness. (About “Bluie West 3”in WW II.) Turning in to Tunugdliarfik Fjord Erik’s homestead Brattahlid was only 75 miles at the end of the fjord (across from Bluie West 1, for you old timers).

After 1200 CE the directions changed. Sail one and a half days west from Iceland to the edge of the ice pack. If it is clear you might see the same mountain, now called Hvitsark (white shirt), to the west (snow covered now?), then go all the way down around hazardous Cap Farvel and up the other coast to Herjolf’s Ness. Eriksfjord was no longer open, nor is it now. As of a decade or so ago there were two valley glaciers blocking it from the sides. Yes, I saw them. If Greenland ice diminishes some, will we be getting back to conditions like it used to be?

Funny that. Climate change causes Vikings to go the long way round.

You're a very angry and unpleasant person, aren't you? Were you called names at school or something? Whatever it is, you should get over it.

Please spare me the passive-aggressive bore-a-thon because nobody's interested.

Are there contemporary cooling signals I'm missing?

Only the satellite record (actually there are two). Both show a peak in 1998 (which was El Nino driven) and a slowdown in warming in one (the UAH record of Spencer and Christy) and a flattening out of temperature (RSS record)

Central England warming, I'd have thought, and you seem very certain of it's magnitude, 3 degrees something. What's the source for that? Presumably not proxy measurements, they wouldn't be so geographically specific. And anyway, proxy measurements are what the climate reconstructions you object to are based on. Multiple instrumental observations, with the instruments of the day? Perhaps just one? Recorded on what temperature scale - Fahrenheit did his work in the 18thCE, Celsius somewhat later.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Central-England-Temperatures.gif

As I said, the record shows a 3C rise in about 36 years starting around 1695.

Will this pass the Capeldodgy filter? Probably not.

You'll appreciate my scepticism about historical climate claims, given the education on the subject I've been given by McIntyre et al.

Not enough skepticism that you'll actually stop quoting the false Hockey Stick version of climate history, apparently. Or the other reconstructions which use the Hockey Stick as a proxy.

As you may be aware, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Any warming, for whatever reason, will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapour. This increase will act as a positive feedback on the original forcing. The same applies in reverse.

But water vapour forms clouds which radiate heat back out of the atmosphere. The water droplets condense (taking more heat energy out by latent heat) and falling back down to earth. So the result is that this small positive feedback is very quickly overwhelmed by a very large negative feedback from water vapour.

As educated people know, if positive feedbacks predominate a system then the system is wildly unstable. The stability of the Earth's climate over billions of years is testament to the dominance of negative feedbacks.

So this warming you refer to will indeed have involved an increase in at least one greenhouse gas over Central England in the late 17thCE. This period also witnessed - in Central England - a marked increase in livestock, for reasons quite unrelated to climate, and the inevitable increase in methane - another greenhouse gas. It was in the 18th century that the British as beef-eating freemen (as opposed to cheese-eating French peasants) became entrenched. That's a lot of cow-fart.

There's no answer to schizophrenic rambling like this.

There was a rapid increase in urbanisation in Central England at the time, not unrelated to the increase in cow-fart.

Or this.

I suppose the records of the Chinese noting the loss of fertile land to desert contemporaenous with the Little Ice Age would pass the Capeldodgy filter? It didn't last time when you made the racist suggestion that the Chinese didn't have the civilization necessary to record such detail.

"Alarmist" is not a charm to ward off the evil eye. (Tu ora en ma cule works for that.) It isn't alarmist to accept well-established science and give credence to its predictions, especially when I've watched them unfold for decades. I was very sceptical of any observable impact of AGW back in the 70's, as were most scientifically educated people. We'd grown up in the scientific culture developed from the late-18thCE (geology) through Darwin to everything else. Gradualist, anti-catastrophic, and humans should get over themselves. The idea that we could, short of a full MAD nuclear exchange, affect the climate seemed hubristic.

I've been persuaded otherwise by events and deeper study of the science.

Unfortunately with reference to Hockey Sticks and similar acts of scientific fraud, which you appear unable to remove from your belief system. "Deeper" in this case doesn't appear to mean "better". You were a climate apocalyptic believer in the 70s and you remain one today - the real Capeldodgy Constant of Motion.

Its plain to see that you fully accept a Marxist view of the corruption of modern industrial society by capitalism and the equally bizarre view that whatever way the climate moves (cooling in the 1970s, warming in the 1990s) points to human-causes alone. The one constant in this "Deeper" understanding is that Apocalypse is around the corner, majorities of scientists must be correct and false modesty combined with overwheening arrogance is a substitute for scientific comprehension.

Areas of permafrost that did not melt during any of these events are melting now. One reason why it was noticed was that these are the regions of long-term accumulation, since the last glacial retreat - obviously, every glacial advance scours the permafrost record clean - that can tell us most about the Holocene climate. There aren't any breaks. The same won't be true in the future; future researchers will find a definite break at this period.

Once again empty rhetoric. Peat bogs don't grow in permafrost and are killed by ice ages So the melting of permafrost in Siberia to reveal more peat bogs points to a time when the peat was being created in warmer conditions than at the present time, like the Holocene Optimum.

Of course, they do nothing of the sort, but what do you care? You've been flipping that coin for a long time, and it's never come up "cooling". Maybe next quarter?

If climate modellers are so good and pure then maybe they'd actually bet on their results to happen in some reasonable timeframe. It's one of the mysteries of modelling that despite being no more accurate than tossing a coin at a 3 month horizon, they become ever more accurate as the time horizon increases.

Truly amazing.

But not so amazing that it trips the Capeldodgy skepticism filter.

varwoche has blessed us with one of his esteemed lists of highly reputable scientific institutions that explicitly endorse the reality of AGW, and there's no sign of grass-roots rebellion by the members their boards represent. You compare this with corner-preachers who con pennies from passers-by when there's a comet in the sky. That would just be sad if it wasn't so offensive.

I would be more impressed if varwoche wasn't a known disseminater of lies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche), but for reference, none of the bodies listed actually polled their members, and one, the Russian Academy of Sciences actively opposed the AGW Theory and was aghast when one member signed up to the declaration made just before Live 8.

Here's the statement from Russian Academy:

Moscow, July 1, 2005

Statement of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change» (further - «Academies' statement»)

The Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science has examined the «Academies' statement» and makes the following statement:

1. The Council-Seminar announces that the Russian Academy of Science has not been given the opportunity of working over the text of the «Academies' statement». «The Academies' statement» itself has not been discussed by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science. The decision to support it has not been taken by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science.

2. The Council-Seminar sees the «Academies' statement» as lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions.

3. The Council-Seminar attracts attention to the fact of absence at the present level of knowledge of cost-effective methods of stabilization of greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.

4. The Council-Seminar noted that the «Academies' statement» offers costly and ineffective measures to achieve unproven targets.

5. The Council-Seminar asks the President of the Russian Academy of Science to repudiate his signature from the «Academies' statement».

6. The Council-Seminar reiterates its full support to its Statement of May 14, 2004*, including:
- in regard of the absence of scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol,
- in regard of ineffectiveness of the Kyoto protocol to achieve aims of the UNFCCC,
- in regard of risks to the Russian economy from the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

* Opinion of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on anthropogenic climate change and Kyoto protocol, Moscow, May 14, 2004.

Of course varwoche isn't going to mention the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon petition because its an inconvenient truth that debunks the claim of scientific consensus, and varwoche isn't about to stop lying for such trivial reasons as facts.

One more thing that might prevent scientists from speaking out: intimidation.

Does the global temperature stop increasing when increased CO2 manifests? Nope. And do not the CO2 and global temperature continue to rise in tandem? They surely do. So how do you distinguish from this that increased atmospheric CO2 - and decreased oceanic CO2 - has no influence on the climate?

Because:

1. Temperature rise always happens first, preceding the CO2 rise by at least six centuries.
2. When CO2 rise starts, the temperature rise does not accelerate.
3. Temperature rise stops while CO2 continues to rise
4. CO2 stops rising and starts falling, long after the temperatures began to fall.

No feedback. No forcing from CO2. Only a straightforward delayed response to temperature rise (and what is the source of that temperature rise? Capeldodgy isn't interested).

So unless you're proposing CO2 can travel backwards in time (and bearing in mind your other responses, I'm not betting against it) then you'll have to accept that the record debunks the theory.

Except of course, that fabled Capeldodgy skepticism extends only to ignoring inconvenient facts that debunk his apocalyptic view of current climate.

Megalodon

17th July 2007, 06:21 AM

Its plain to see that you fully accept a Marxist view of the corruption of modern industrial society by capitalism and the equally bizarre view that whatever way the climate moves (cooling in the 1970s, warming in the 1990s) points to human-causes alone. The one constant in this "Deeper" understanding is that Apocalypse is around the corner, majorities of scientists must be correct and false modesty combined with overwheening arrogance is a substitute for scientific comprehension.

Cleanup on aisle 1! Someone spilled a can of stupid...

mhaze

17th July 2007, 07:16 AM

Cleanup on aisle 1! Someone spilled a can of stupid...

Huh?

If AGW Alarmists really did give a diddly squat about fixing the problem, they would just be simply proposing to build nuclear plants, since that fixes the alleged problem. Period. End of subject.

They do not do that, therefore there is a group of alternative agendas.

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 07:19 AM

Huh?

If AGW Alarmists really did give a diddly squat about fixing the problem, they would just be simply proposing to build nuclear plants, since that fixes the alleged problem. Period. End of subject.

They do not do that, therefore there is a group of alternative agendas.Cleanup on Aisle 6! Someone dumped a whole case of illogic on the floor...

CapelDodger

18th July 2007, 06:38 PM

Well they didn't do so. Here's what I received from Reid Bryson, the grand poobah of modern climatology:

A scientists well beyond the end of his career, who spouts naive but comforting nonsense. Without, as far as I can see, references. Which is to ask, what does he base his understanding of Icelandic sailing instructions on? Sagas? Almanacs? Documents of any sort? I'm genuinely interested.

Funny that. Climate change causes Vikings to go the long way round.

http://www.greenland-discoverer.com/adventure/tbgsuk2006.htm

The Fjord may have been blocked "as of a decade ago" (which apparently equates to "now" for Bryson; even at my age I see how that happens) when Bryson wrote that, but apparently not so in the actual now. Things have changed a lot in the last twenty years or so.

Global climate reconstructions don't show global temperatures as being higher than the period around 1000CE until the last few decades. There's bound to be a delay in reproducing contemporary conditions. That delay seems to be over in at least one case.

Please spare me the passive-aggressive bore-a-thon because nobody's interested.

Consider yourself spared, despite how little I value your opinion on what people are interested in.

Only the satellite record (actually there are two). Both show a peak in 1998 (which was El Nino driven) and a slowdown in warming in one (the UAH record of Spencer and Christy) and a flattening out of temperature (RSS record)

Still warming, then. Where are the signs of cooling?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Central-England-Temperatures.gif

As I said, the record shows a 3C rise in about 36 years starting around 1695.

So it does. In fact, that first 80 years or so of thermometer readings shows some pretty wild fluctuations. Much wilder than in the next couple of centuries. Fahrenheit produced his standard scale in, I think, the 1730's, and thermometry as a science and in technical terms entered its maturity.

The only comparable anomoly appears at the far right-hand end, with a 2C rise in, what, 25 years? And without that sudden deep dip just beforehand. Makes you think, eh?

Will this pass the Capeldodgy filter? Probably not.

You really were called names at school, weren't you? The question that remains is : was it because you lack social skills, or why you lack social skills?

(I'll spare you the "passive", I promise).

Not enough skepticism that you'll actually stop quoting the false Hockey Stick version of climate history, apparently. Or the other reconstructions which use the Hockey Stick as a proxy.

Use the Hockey Stick as a proxy? What new weirdness is this?

But water vapour forms clouds which radiate heat back out of the atmosphere. The water droplets condense (taking more heat energy out by latent heat) and falling back down to earth. So the result is that this small positive feedback is very quickly overwhelmed by a very large negative feedback from water vapour.

"The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide."

The second quote is from one Reid A. Bryson, with whose work you may be familiar.

Getting back to your contribution, clouds radiate heat not only out of the atmosphere but also back into the atmosphere below them. (And inside the cloud itself, it's all a bit baffling.) That's the greenhouse effect at work. Clouds reflect energy back into space. Not terribly efficiently; it takes a really thick cloud to necessitate turning the lights on in the afternoon. We had one of those over Cardiff a couple of days ago, followed by terrific thunder, lightning, downpour, hailstones, it was fricking Biblical. But I've seen worse. And I digress, except insofar as the pavements were dry again in less than an hour, without direct sunlight.

Condensation depends on relative humidity, which is a function of water-vapour present (partial-pressure of H2O, if long-ago schooling doesn't fail me) and temperature. Which is to say, clear air has more water-vapour in it at higher temperatures. Clouds have more water-vapour in them at higher temperatures. There's just more water-vapour around, doing its greenhouse thing.

As educated people know, if positive feedbacks predominate a system then the system is wildly unstable. The stability of the Earth's climate over billions of years is testament to the dominance of negative feedbacks.

Stability over billions of years? What are you on? Your obvious lack of education and intelligence surely don't lead to anything so ludicrous. A stable climate since before the Permian and you quibble about tenths of a degree Celsius in the Holocene? There has to be more to it than ignorance and stupidity. You're being made a monkey of.

There's no answer to schizophrenic rambling like this.

A whole new epthet to hurl when you can't counter, and quite possibly can't grasp, some perfectly cogent points. Denialists are happy, nay desperate, to point the finger for current warming on water-vapour as the major greenhouse gas and methane from livestock as more important than CO2, but try to ignore them when they seek refuge in the past.

I suppose the records of the Chinese noting the loss of fertile land to desert contemporaenous with the Little Ice Age would pass the Capeldodgy filter? It didn't last time when you made the racist suggestion that the Chinese didn't have the civilization necessary to record such detail.

As I recall it was TitanPoint who called me a racist, but you aren't TitanPoint, are you? I'm sure you denied it at some point.

In fact, I'd pointed out on thatoccasion that Chinese (and Indian) observations and written histories did not tally with the European idea of the Little Ice Age, whereas you (or TitanPoint, whoever) claimed that only proxy measurements were valid. It was I who brought up the point that we do not have to depend on a Eurocentric historical record of the mid-millenium because literacy has long been widespread. I was then accused of being a racist. Go figure. Any port in a storm is good enough for some.

Man, that was a long time ago. Same world, but cooler.

An irony of denialist climate reconstructions is that every historical event is claimed as evidence of climate change, while the effects of climate change in the modern world are dismissed as nugatory. Once again, some go figuring is called for.

Is it not possible that there were other reasons for desertification in China during this rather ill-defined period? Have the Chinese merely been chaff on the wind of climate change? Is it inconceivable that China had its own dustbowl before the US? It has a vastly longer history, and had its own expansion into the West.

Unfortunately with reference to Hockey Sticks and similar acts of scientific fraud, which you appear unable to remove from your belief system. "Deeper" in this case doesn't appear to mean "better". You were a climate apocalyptic believer in the 70s and you remain one today - the real Capeldodgy Constant of Motion.

As I've stated, I was seriously under-whelmed by the prospect of AGW in the 70's. Have you any good reason to call me a liar? Apart from you're own ignorant bigotry and borderline autism?

Its plain to see that you fully accept a Marxist view of the corruption of modern industrial society by capitalism and the equally bizarre view that whatever way the climate moves (cooling in the 1970s, warming in the 1990s) points to human-causes alone. The one constant in this "Deeper" understanding is that Apocalypse is around the corner, majorities of scientists must be correct and false modesty combined with overwheening arrogance is a substitute for scientific comprehension.

Just you keep on making the denialist case, you're winning converts with every post. Eyes are being opened to the real conspiracy even as we speak.

Once again empty rhetoric. Peat bogs don't grow in permafrost and are killed by ice ages So the melting of permafrost in Siberia to reveal more peat bogs points to a time when the peat was being created in warmer conditions than at the present time, like the Holocene Optimum.

Gibberish.

I made no mention of peat-bogs, you're dragging that up from some fuzzy memory of something you read in your comfort-zone. Permafrost grows when there is enough surface melting in the summer to permit plant-life a brief period of activity, laying down new organic deposits when it dies in autumn. The depth of summertime surface-melting depends on the temperature, and that depth includes the previous year's addition.

In a constant climate, any layer will go through multiple thaw-freeze cycles until it becomes too deep to thaw. That's where the "perma" starts to apply. These layers of permafrost can easily be dated, and in places show an unbroken accumulation since the Younger Dryas. In some such places the summertime melt is eating back into centuries of accumulation, something that did not happen in the Holocene Maximum, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period.

If climate modellers are so good and pure then maybe they'd actually bet on their results to happen in some reasonable timeframe. It's one of the mysteries of modelling that despite being no more accurate than tossing a coin at a 3 month horizon, they become ever more accurate as the time horizon increases.

Truly amazing.

Keep making your case, your public loves you for it.

I'm prepared to bet the Northern Hemisphere will be cooler than today in six months time; do you want to take me up on that?

But not so amazing that it trips the Capeldodgy skepticism filter.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I would be more impressed if varwoche wasn't a known disseminater of lies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche), but for reference, none of the bodies listed actually polled their members, and one, the Russian Academy of Sciences actively opposed the AGW Theory and was aghast when one member signed up to the declaration made just before Live 8.

Here's the statement from Russian Academy:

You're quoting the Russians in support of your case? How times change. Got anything else?

Of course varwoche isn't going to mention the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon petition because its an inconvenient truth that debunks the claim of scientific consensus, and varwoche isn't about to stop lying for such trivial reasons as facts.

Oh, of course, the Oregon Project.

One more thing that might prevent scientists from speaking out: intimidation.

It's a scary world, science. Say the wrong thing and the politicians come down on you. Ironically, Russian scientists are free now, while Western scientists aren't.

Because:

1. Temperature rise always happens first, preceding the CO2 rise by at least six centuries.
2. When CO2 rise starts, the temperature rise does not accelerate.
3. Temperature rise stops while CO2 continues to rise
4. CO2 stops rising and starts falling, long after the temperatures began to fall.

No feedback. No forcing from CO2. Only a straightforward delayed response to temperature rise (and what is the source of that temperature rise? Capeldodgy isn't interested).

1. Warming occurs by different means - for instance, Milankovitch cycles and solar variation.

2. The resolution of out-of-glaciation temperatures is not good enought to make anything of the second-derivative, that is, the rate of warming. Given that the CO2 contribution is not related to the original forcing, which may have diminished in the meantime, there's no good reason to expect an acceleration, so its absence tells us nothing anyway.

3. CO2 isn't the only climate forcing, and we've already established by (1) that another is in play. If the original forcing has gone into a negative phase CO2 can rise further - there's a lot of inertia in the system - without causing further warming.

4. CO2 stabilises, then falls as other forcings cool the climate. There's a lot of inertia in the system. CO2 is absorbed by cooling oceans, from the surface down. There's a lot of ocean compared with its surface, which is where the interchange with the atmosphere happens.

So unless you're proposing CO2 can travel backwards in time (and bearing in mind your other responses, I'm not betting against it) then you'll have to accept that the record debunks the theory.

See above.

Except of course, that fabled Capeldodgy skepticism extends only to ignoring inconvenient facts that debunk his apocalyptic view of current climate.

I appreciate that you're trying to undermine me, giving me a silly name (did that hurt for you?), calling me Marxist and racist at the same time, and suchlike, but I don't think it's working. You're going to have to address the issue without hysteria to make any impact. Pretty soon even mhaze will admonish you for lowering the tone, and he's notoriously partial in such matters.

a_unique_person

18th July 2007, 07:54 PM

The Oregon Petition was a scam from the start, with Mickey Mouse signing up, run by a loner wacko out in the sticks.

mhaze

19th July 2007, 08:15 AM

The Oregon Petition was a scam from the start, with Mickey Mouse signing up, run by a loner wacko out in the sticks.

People: choose between Mickey Mouse and Al Gore.:)

Corsair 115

19th July 2007, 10:09 PM

If an observer of this thread may be permitted to interject for a moment...

Its plain to see that you fully accept a Marxist view of the corruption of modern industrial society by capitalism and the equally bizarre view that whatever way the climate moves (cooling in the 1970s, warming in the 1990s) points to human-causes alone.It seems to me this comment says much more about the poster than it does the person it was responding to. What on earth do political assumptions have to do with anything relating to what scientific evidence there is or is not on global warming/climate change?

It's a comment which is completely and utterly out of place if it's the evidence which is supposed the item being discussed here.

Sorry, Diamond, but if you're trying to get people to come to accept your view on the matter, comments such as the one quoted are the exact wrong way to go about it.

CapelDodger

20th July 2007, 04:50 PM

Sorry, Diamond, but if you're trying to get people to come to accept your view on the matter, comments such as the one quoted are the exact wrong way to go about it.

Would you not discourage him, please? Diamond is the denialist exemplar I'd pray for, were I superstitious. He does the anti-science cause less than no favours, and I am committed to the cause of science.

CapelDodger

20th July 2007, 04:55 PM

People: choose between Mickey Mouse and Al Gore.:)

Self-parody can only get you so far. There's a point at which it becomes sad. Within error-bars, obviously. Step warily, is my advice.

CapelDodger

20th July 2007, 05:12 PM

The Oregon Petition was a scam from the start, with Mickey Mouse signing up, run by a loner wacko out in the sticks.

Buy a sciency-sounding degree for $97 and get a free entry on the petition; only $67 with a coupon. Check here to disdain the free entry ... and get added to the Islamo-Groucho-Fascist suspect list.

Diamond is the dream opponent. So deliberately offensive that it doesn't feel like bullying to exploit his obvious weaknesses, however cruel that might be. It's entirely justified.

Can I help it if I love it?

Corsair 115

21st July 2007, 01:51 PM

Would you not discourage him, please? Diamond is the denialist exemplar I'd pray for, were I superstitious. He does the anti-science cause less than no favours, and I am committed to the cause of science.If he's prone to making such statements, then I highly doubt my interjection is going to dissuade him...

CapelDodger

22nd July 2007, 04:35 PM

If he's prone to making such statements, then I highly doubt my interjection is going to dissuade him...

Oh no doubt, nothing any of us say is going to make any real difference to Diamond. There's never a final word to be had with Diamond because there's always some freak available to start a new AGW thread and, hey presto, another Diamond drive-by. Same ammo, same pathetic calibre, same old lame old.

And I wouldn't have things any other way :) .

Safe-Keeper

30th July 2007, 09:42 PM

[Reads the War on Terror parody] Eh, CapelDodger, is that the best you can do? Come on:'I assert it's a gigantic con, there is so much money to be made from the "Concept" of a round Earth that it's absolutely staggering. Presidential candidates are simply leveraging the "Concept" of a round Earth as adopted and excepted by the masses to appeal to the masses. It's a part of every candidates agenda, the "Promise to the people", or as I call it, "The Pitch".'

Think about how much money and prestige would be lost if it became evident the Earth is actually flat. Think of the consequences for GPS manufacturers, the space industry, satellite logistics! OBVIOUSLY this means there's really a cover-up! After all, every scientist who disagrees with the shape of the Earth is laughed at and shunned by his collegues!
Much to learn on parodies, you have:p.

Bottom line: If two people state that the Earth is round, and one has a huge economic vested interest in the Earth being round - who's the least right? Exactly. They're both 100% right because it's been proven that the Earth is round, rendering personal attacks obsolete and useless.

Please remember that if "G-D" was good enough for Einstein and that mind of his, he's good enough for me. I know, I know, most of you JREF folks are atheist or agnostics. Many of you look at Randi if he were a G-D, you speak like him, think like him, etc, etc. Have a little faith . Yes people, a little faith.Einstein was not a Christian:"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

--Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689 (http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0691023689)
But how can just making a chart of the last couple years be cherry picking? Don't think so.

Nope, Just the corrupt climate modellers that claim to be able to project/predict climate change one hundred years into the future, yet cannot predict climate even 3 months ahead better than tossing a coin.Predicting the next wave and predicting the next high tide are two different things.

More on that here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/221636/43).

It is far more interesting that that. They were also attacked by the Inuit. But the major cause was that the climate turned on them viciously.
Actually, the newest issue of Science Illustrated History dispells the Inuit attack theory as a myth. Let me get the sources.

Did you know that the Viking instructions on how to reach the colony changed in the 13th Century to a longer and more difficult path because of ice walls blocking the way? That that ice is still blocking the more direct way?I think the reason why you're pulling the navigational doctrine of my bearded ancestors into this discussion is to make the point refuted here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/22437/993).

No. Because ignorance is clearly a point of view for you that trumps everything else.And, apparently, for founders of Wikis for critical thinking. The sadness. Really:(.

We don't know that. Unlike certain people I don't make a claim that 9 years represents a major climatic trend. Climate changes all the time, which is where your analysis falls down, because only warming signals pass the Capeldodgy filter.I don't think anyone has denied that climate change all the time. The current cause of alarm is that it's changing rapidly.

[Picture of airplane]

Gosh. It seems to have ran off the runway.

Gee. You mean that's Bon Jovi's private jet there?

The same Bon Jovi in Gore's Live Earth?

The list does indeed need to grow longer.

By way of background, the Boeing 707 Aircraft is essentially obselete due to very, very poor fuel economy. That means you can buy them very cheap, but you are going to pay out the nose for fuel. Guess Bon Jovi really doesn't care about those little details. Besides not being able to get a plane on the ground

Don't forget - big global warming opportunities yet to be explored.

The business of gloom and doom is all rather exciting isn't it?If two people state that the Earth is round...

Oh! Even better! Two sex ed teachers tell their students that they shoulduse condoms to protect themselves against AIDS. Only one actually does. Who's the most right? [Answer: Both of them. Evidence supports the statement that condoms protect against AIDS, and the alleged hypocrisy of one teacher does not disprove this the slightest.]

Look, no one's denying that both sides have money to gain on this. There's money to be gained on everything. So cut the ad hominem attacks, please.

Not enough skepticism that you'll actually stop quoting the false Hockey Stick version of climate history, apparently. Or the other reconstructions which use the Hockey Stick as a proxy.
The original hockey stick may have been a hoax, but does that matter? Aren't you forgeting that the new graphs, too, show that the warming trend is different from the ones previously experienced.
More here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236).

If AGW Alarmists really did give a diddly squat about fixing the problem, they would just be simply proposing to build nuclear plants, since that fixes the alleged problem. Period. End of subject.For the third time, we don't need 'if they really cared'-type posts here. Either discuss the evidence, or, if you can't do that, admit defeat. If two scientists both state the Earth is round, and two sex ed teachers both... [fade-out]

Oh no doubt, nothing any of us say is going to make any real difference to Diamond. There's never a final word to be had with Diamond because there's always some freak available to start a new AGW thread and, hey presto, another Diamond drive-by. Same ammo, same pathetic calibre, same old lame old.My biggest problem right now is trying to get out of the state of shock it was to see his posts coupled with the 'ScepticWiki founder' tag.