PDA

View Full Version : An Inconvenient Truth



Pages : [1] 2

Joe (SoCal)
06-03-2006, 08:55 AM
This should go for a few page thread, and bring out the hard core Kool-Aid drinkers. ;)

Recent review by ROGER EBERT is compeling. One thing that stands out in the review is Ebert saying the following In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Powerful review.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002

As I have said more than a few times I have a friend who is a NASA Scientist. He works at Columbia at the NASA GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is by trade a professor of Climatology, and about the smartest man my age that I know. He says with out a doubt Global Warming is a fact.


An Inconvenient Truth

BY ROGER EBERT / June 2, 2006


Cast & Credits
Paramount Classics presents a documentary featuring Al Gore. Directed by Davis Guggenheim. Running time: 100 minutes. Rated PG (for mild thematic elements).

movie trailer
An Inconvenient Truth (Quicktime)»

Trailers provided by
Apple Movie Trailers

Printer-friendly »
E-mail this to a friend »

I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts.

Global warming is real.

It is caused by human activity.

Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.

If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.

These facts are stated by Al Gore in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Forget he ever ran for office. Consider him a concerned man speaking out on the approaching crisis. "There is no controversy about these facts," he says in the film. "Out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero."

He stands on a stage before a vast screen, in front of an audience. The documentary is based on a speech he has been developing for six years, and is supported by dramatic visuals. He shows the famous photograph "Earthrise," taken from space by the first American astronauts. Then he shows a series of later space photographs, clearly indicating that glaciers and lakes are shrinking, snows are melting, shorelines are retreating.

He provides statistics: The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14 years. Last year South America experienced its first hurricane. Japan and the Pacific are setting records for typhoons. Hurricane Katrina passed over Florida, doubled back over the Gulf, picked up strength from unusually warm Gulf waters, and went from Category 3 to Category 5. There are changes in the Gulf Stream and the jet stream. Cores of polar ice show that carbon dioxide is much, much higher than ever before in a quarter of a million years. It was once thought that such things went in cycles. Gore stands in front of a graph showing the ups and downs of carbon dioxide over the centuries. Yes, there is a cyclical pattern. Then, in recent years, the graph turns up and keeps going up, higher and higher, off the chart.

The primary man-made cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. We are taking energy stored over hundreds of millions of years in the form of coal, gas and oil, and releasing it suddenly. This causes global warming, and there is a pass-along effect. Since glaciers and snow reflect sunlight but sea water absorbs it, the more the ice melts, the more of the sun's energy is retained by the sea.

Gore says that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of tobacco. My father was a Luckys smoker who died of lung cancer in 1960, and 20 years later it was still "debatable" that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. Now we are talking about the death of the future, starting in the lives of those now living.

"The world won't 'end' overnight in 10 years," Gore says. "But a point will have been passed, and there will be an irreversible slide into destruction."

In England, Sir James Lovelock, the scientist who proposed the Gaia hypothesis (that the planet functions like a living organism), has published a new book saying that in 100 years mankind will be reduced to "a few breeding couples at the Poles." Gore thinks "that's too pessimistic. We can turn this around just as we reversed the hole in the ozone layer. But it takes action right now, and politicians in every nation must have the courage to do what is necessary. It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue."

When I said I was going to a press screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," a friend said, "Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor...ing!" This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore's concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a responsibility to do that.

What can we do? Switch to and encourage the development of alternative energy sources: Solar, wind, tidal, and, yes, nuclear. Move quickly toward hybrid and electric cars. Pour money into public transit, and subsidize the fares. Save energy in our houses. I did a funny thing when I came home after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth." I went around the house turning off the lights.

Joe (SoCal)
06-03-2006, 08:57 AM
He he eh :) I have my OWN personal Thread ;)

Joe (SoCal)
06-03-2006, 09:39 AM
Bwaaaaaa ha ha :D

Joe (SoCal)
06-03-2006, 10:20 AM
Threads open :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-03-2006, 08:19 PM
What happened to the original Brian Bloodthirsty thread? :D

Joe (SoCal)
06-03-2006, 08:21 PM
Down in the huntin and fishin thread

BrianW
06-03-2006, 09:35 PM
What happened to the original Brian Bloodthirsty thread? :D

You can do that to any thread Petey, your the one who did it to Joes last thread.

Leon m
06-04-2006, 02:20 PM
Ahhhyep, Thats the thing about Mother Nature most people don't understand ...Its a fine balancing act we live with, get things too outta wack and ol Mother Nature steps in with a good dose of flood famine or pestalence to get the scales right again...I'd say we are about to really push our luck. Sorry folks but our consumption of fuel wasn't in NATURES plan.
__________________

essaunders
06-04-2006, 03:12 PM
what are the ethics of driving 1+ hour to see this movie?
i checked movie listngs and Boston is my closest theatre. So, do i drive to see it and contribute to the problem or skip it and figure i already got the message.

kharee
06-05-2006, 02:40 AM
Global warming and the attendant rise of sea levels should do wonders for the boat building industry! I thing warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures in general. We can do more sailing and less driving. Saving fuel all around.

Henning 4148
06-05-2006, 06:00 AM
Difficult to make a comment on this topic. Even if we accept the fact, that it is coming along, what are the possible strategies to deal with it? Buy an old farm and become self reliant, working with horses instead of tractors in the old ways that didn't require a lot of energy? Just go into a museum and have a look how life was then. Won't work for the next years anyway as the prices for food are under more and more globalisation pressure in Germany. The number of independent farms here has shrunk by some 30 % in the last 10 years or so and the farmers who still have small farms mostly work very hard for very little. Globalisation and large scale farming will not stop as long as transport is cheap. Transport will stay cheap as long as energy is cheap. So, when energy goes up and transport becomes expensive, we may not have the infrastructure of small farming any more that can be done with little energy consumption.

A scenario of the western industrial society falling apart because of lack of energy isn't nice if it should happen. If people do not have enough to eat, they will become very aggressive.

Probably, the solution for our society is a combination of alternative energy and energy conservation. But that may require a redefinition of our values which currently are success based and very much link social standing to the glitter of the toys you can afford. Redefinitions of such society values can take generations.

So, let's ask the open question: What are the possible strategies that would work in this context?

PeterSibley
06-05-2006, 06:23 AM
Henning ,
realistically ..its not going to happen.There will be window dressing but no real change ....because to really alter rates of CO2 emmissions doesn't require something like Kyoto , it needs the emmission levels of 1910...and that is just not going to happen.

It is possible ,but the costs would be impossible to sell to the public.IF the whole thing is correct (some thing I think is very ,very likely ) any change will come when it is visible ,when we can see it on the TV news service and by then it will be much too late .

The only conceivable way for it to be sold to the public is as a National Security Issue ,as it undoubtedly is .In that case any government could take whatever measures were required ,the trouble of course is that most gvernments are so deeply in debt to the various fossil energy industries who are of course totally opposed to any thing that would affect profits .

All in all, I really hope the doubters are right ...because if they are wrong we are in deep trouble .

It won't just be a matter of getting warmer (something you Northerns would no doubt welcome ! ), it is the reorientation of weather patterns ,no rain where there should be rain, too much elsewhere ,there are even proposals that the Gulf Stream could stop... the effects of that on Western Europe would be catastrophic.... I don't know how Germany would go ,but England would freeze solid.


"Probably, the solution for our society is a combination of alternative energy and energy conservation. But that may require a redefinition of our values which currently are success based and very much link social standing to the glitter of the toys you can afford. Redefinitions of such society values can take generations."

I suspect Henning that the redefinition of social values could be swift and brutal.

Paul G.
06-05-2006, 06:48 AM
Joe,

Global warming as a result of mans activities is a crock.

Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it

Joe (SoCal)
06-05-2006, 07:01 AM
Joe,

Global warming as a result of mans activities is a crock.

Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it

WHOA :eek: Paul thats shocking, and exactly where did you do your post doctorate work in climatology? Because your opinion is somewhat different than my friend who works at Columbia at the NASA GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is by trade a professor of Climatology, and about EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST ON EARTH who say with out a doubt Global Warming is a fact.

Kool-Aid must be extremely strong this morning

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050401/koolaidman.jpg

John Bell
06-05-2006, 08:38 AM
WHOA :eek: Paul thats shocking, and exactly where did you do your post doctorate work in climatology? Because your opinion is somewhat different than my friend who works at Columbia at the NASA GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is by trade a professor of Climatology, and about EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST ON EARTH who say with out a doubt Global Warming is a fact.


You did not read what Paul said, Joe. You only read what you wanted to hear. Who was the female NYT columnist who famously edited quotes to suit her agenda? Maureen Dowd? That's what you just did.

Popeye
06-05-2006, 08:41 AM
i owe you for the guy in the place with the thing and i haven't forgotten

Joe (SoCal)
06-05-2006, 08:51 AM
I'm confused if I made a Dowd I apologize

ishmael
06-05-2006, 08:54 AM
Koolaid? I assume that's a reference to Jim Jones? So glad you get perverse pleasure from that tragic episode, Joe.

As a symbol then, it refers to those who blindly follow authority, not to those who dissent.

The "scientific consensus" touted by Mr. Gore and the mainstream media is far from it. There is plenty of debate as to effect as well as the cause of global warming. I'll let you do your own googling, but I assure you it's there.

So who is drinking the Koolaid, that sickly wine of blind devotion? Those who believe everthing they are told by the likes of Al Gore, or those who want to find out for themselves what many other scientists are asking and saying?

emichaels
06-05-2006, 09:00 AM
On Subject. Did any of you folks happen to catch the NPR story last friday about the scientist that pulled up a core of bedrock under the, I think they said Icelandic glacier, that suggested to them that there where perhaps 70 degree F. temps at the end of the iceage. Suggesting that there was actually a global warming previously that cooled and is now warming again. Stay tuned there may be more than what meets the eye on this subject.

Off subject. It looks like Al Gore may have found a way for the dems and repubs to fund his next bid for the whote house. Go buy a movie ticket !

Popeye
06-05-2006, 09:15 AM
it's plainly not in the interest of those who have membership in the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos lodge

emichaels
06-05-2006, 09:17 AM
Read and be enlightened. This is not the story I heard on NPR , but yet another point of view..........presented by scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/23/global.warming.reut/index.html

Joe (SoCal)
06-05-2006, 09:24 AM
The "scientific consensus" touted by Mr. Gore and the mainstream media is far from it. There is plenty of debate as to effect as well as the cause of global warming. I'll let you do your own googling, but I assure you it's there.

I can do this ALL day

The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming is largely human-caused (e.g. American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies),

American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications. Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society has a membership of more than 11,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts. Some members have attained the designation "Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM)", many of whom have expertise in the applied meteorology discipline of atmospheric dispersion modeling. To the general public, however, the AMS is best known for its Seal of Approval to television and radio meteorologists. Sealholders must pass a test on weather principles, submit tapes of their media weather forecast for review by a technical panel, and have a college degree in meteorology or a related field.
The AMS publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic journals — in print and online — sponsors more than 12 conferences annually, and offers numerous programs and services. There is also an extensive network of local chapters.
The AMS has published a number of policy statements on issues related to its competence [1] on subjects such as drought [2], ozone [3] and climate change research [4].

The American Meteorological Society publishes the following scientific journals:
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
Journal of Physical Oceanography
Monthly Weather Review
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Weather and Forecasting
Journal of Climate
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Earth Interactions
Meteorological Monographs


Joint Science Academies
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf


But yea Ish your correct they are all wrong I got it :eek: :eek: :eek:

As long as there is a shadow of doubt or one contrary scientist wacko your going to BELIEVE

StevenBauer
06-05-2006, 09:27 AM
Here's the stiry Eric: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5447575 (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/vbulletin/upload/www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5447575)

"Talk of the Nation, June 2, 2006 · New data obtained from an Arctic drilling expedition indicates that about 49 million years ago, the Arctic was green, with fresh surface water and ferns covering the water -- at least during the summer months. The finding, researchers say, indicates that they may have seriously underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm Arctic areas."

Steven

Art Read
06-05-2006, 09:57 AM
david harsanyi | staff columnist
Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist







You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




- and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

Meerkat
06-05-2006, 02:47 PM
The "scientific consensus" touted by Mr. Gore and the mainstream media is far from it. There is plenty of debate as to effect as well as the cause of global warming. I'll let you do your own googling, but I assure you it's there.
It sure is! The energy industry pays good money to cast it as a questionable debate and they can afford the very best in smoke and mirrors and lots of them too!

Meerkat
06-05-2006, 02:55 PM
From a (maybe slightly) different perspective: regardless of the cause, global warming is happening. It will cause profound changes.

A key thing to watch: how much does it freeze in the midwest? If there are not enough freezing days, wheat won't germinate. That's a recipe for starvation.

PeterSibley
06-05-2006, 03:39 PM
Unless you use Australian wheat varieties..much worse if it doesn't rain.Ask me how we know .

I sincerely hope Art's Mr Gray is correct..because we're betting everything we have on one roll of the dice ,personally I'd prefer to give up a few things as a precautionary.

Nick Scheuer
06-05-2006, 06:54 PM
"Doubt it". (smirk)

After all, he has more important things on his plate, like coming up with intellectually bankrupt reasons for a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay marriage.

Moby Nick

Meerkat
06-05-2006, 06:59 PM
No, no, no! The flag burning amendment is the intellectually bankrupt one - gay marriage is the one that's morally bankrupt!

Nick Scheuer
06-06-2006, 06:39 AM
to the list, but my thoughts on the Gay Marriage Amendment don't even involve morals.

With almost one out of two heterosexual marriage ending in divorce, I fail to see how compasratively few Gay and Lesbian marriages could possibly make those stats worse.

With so many heterosexual marriages in dire trouble; with those troubles often involving children; with many children being abused in unhappy heterosexual marriages, I fail to understand how raising comparatively few children in statistically happier marriages could possibly make things worse for people in general.

Were I a "Right Thinking" Conservative Republican, forcing my wife to wear nothing but skirts, lace, and hats with little veils, and accustomed to "laying down the law" to my "obedient" children, I'd be ashamed to admit that a couple of children in a Gay household down the block might somehow result in my children growing up to be Gay or Lesbian. That is, unless maybe my children just wanted to try immitating the kids in the happier household.

Morals is a whole different argument, and with Bush in charge of America's morals, so-called "Christians" running around (uninvited) killing Muslims in Persia just like the old days in the Crusades, then "Christians" may no longer enjoy a step up from other religions.

Moby Nick

Nick Scheuer
06-06-2006, 06:49 AM
Where does the allusion to Kool Aid come from? I see it posted here now and then, but it's relevance escapes me.

Not necessarily news, of course, my first wife and youngest daughter would often ask me, "And exactly which broom closet have you been living in for tha past ten years?"

Moby Nick

Leon m
06-06-2006, 07:18 AM
There is plenty of debate as to effect as well as the cause of global warming.

And thats Just the way the Republicans want it...keep everbody busy fighting to buy them time to feed at the oil troth.

Joe (SoCal)
06-06-2006, 08:13 AM
Your wrong ishmael, it's as simple as that. The ENTIRE independent scientific community around the globe says you're wrong. You want to cherry pick politically motivated think tanks that are implemented only to counter the scientific community be my guest. The FACTS remain - MOUNTAINS independent scientific data review and published in reputable independent scientific journals confirmed by the scientific process explicitly confirm global warming. You can say the world is flat because some kooks say there is plenty of debate a flat earth. but that don't make this round world flat.


The energy industry pays good money to cast it as a questionable debate and they can afford the very best in smoke and mirrors and lots of them too!

Joe (SoCal)
06-06-2006, 08:20 AM
Where does the allusion to Kool Aid come from? I see it posted here now and then, but it's relevance escapes me.

Not necessarily news, of course, my first wife and youngest daughter would often ask me, "And exactly which broom closet have you been living in for tha past ten years?"

Moby Nick

Ish said it pretty well previously.


Koolaid? I assume that's a reference to Jim Jones....

As a symbol then, it refers to those who blindly follow authority, not to those who dissent.

ishmael
06-06-2006, 08:36 AM
I didn't take a stand one way or the other, Joe. In the past I've stated that we are clearly in a warming period and that the cause is less than clear.

My problem is with the attitude that says anyone who would like to hear public debate, to listen to other points of view from reputable scientists who disagree with what is perhaps the mainstream, are "Koolaid drinkers" to be shouted down, ridiculed. From all appearances that's precisely what has happened.

There are reputable dissenting voices in climatology, as pointed out in the Denver Post article. But I have yet to see a single network or public TV program laying out all sides and giving the various viewpoints air. Neither have a read such a debate laid out anywhere other than blogs. Journalism has fallen flat on its face on this issue.

When people run around saying there is a consensus, when I know otherwise, it smells to high heaven of politics, not science. I ask again, who's drinking the Koolaid?

Joe (SoCal)
06-06-2006, 08:43 AM
You can public debate all you want while the administration continues to burn oil and send boys off to ONLY oil producing countries to fight and die.

Debate until you run out of o2

There are NO reputable dissenting voices in climatolog. As a point of fact some of the names more than likely were attached with out consent.

ishmael
06-06-2006, 08:55 AM
Running out of oxygen? Well, you're clearly NOT in a position to evaluate the science. LOL.

The emotion you display is understandable, Joe. But it betrays a lack of reason around the issue. You're not alone.

What would be wrong with rounding up the best and the brightest minds studying the various aspects of the issue, coming from differing opinions as to cause, effect, extent etc. and having a series of primetime debates on TV? If this is, as Gore et al is saying, a potentially civilization ending problem our journalistic community would serve us better thusly, rather than publishing and broadcasting one-sided diatatribes. That they don't do this makes me very suspicious of the science and the politics around it.

Bruce Taylor
06-06-2006, 08:58 AM
Roger Pielke (quoted in the opinion piece Art posted) clarifies his position:

The use of the term “climate skeptic” inaccurately describes my perspective on climate change. The column stated that,

“Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.” ”

Our research, and that of my colleagues, has documented a diversity of first-order human climate forcings. I agree with the findings and conclusions in the 2005 National Academy Report “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties” . The very significant implications of this Report in the discussion of the human role in climate variability and change have been completely ignored by the media.

I am not skeptical of a substantial human forcing of climate change including the subset of climate change that is referred to as “global warming”!

climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu

Art Read
06-06-2006, 08:59 AM
Joe... You're starting to sound a little shrill....

"There are NO reputable dissenting voices in climatolog"


Keep reading:


"Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away
By Joel Achenbach

KEVIN MOLONEY / THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON — It should be glorious to be Bill Gray, professor emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical-storm season. He works in the atmospheric-science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.

But he's also outraged.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

He has testified about this to the U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out.

"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby-boomer, yuppie thing."

Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again.

He is almost desperate to be heard. His time is short. He is 76 years old.




The case for warming

Human beings are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, warming the planet in the process.

Since the dawn of the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen from about 280 to about 380 parts per million. In the past century, the average surface temperature of Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Much of that warming has been in the past three decades.

Regional effects can be more dramatic: The Arctic is melting at an alarming rate. Arctic sea ice is 40 percent thinner than it was in the 1970s. Glaciers in Greenland are speeding up as they slide toward the sea. A recent report shows Antarctica losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.

The permafrost is melting across broad swaths of Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Tree-devouring beetles, common in the American Southwest, are suddenly ravaging the evergreens of British Columbia. Coral reefs are bleaching, scalded by overheated tropical waters. There appear to have been more strong hurricanes and cyclones in recent decades.

The 1990s were the warmest decade on record. The year 1998 set the all-time mark. This decade is on its way to setting a new standard. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global effort involving hundreds of climate scientists, projected in 2001 that, depending on the rate of greenhouse-gas emissions and general climate sensitivities, the global average temperature would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100. Sea levels could rise just a few inches, or nearly three feet.

All of the above is part of the emerging, solidifying scientific consensus on global warming.

The skeptics' view

When you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth.

It is a planet where global warming isn't happening — or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

There is no consensus on global warming, they say. There is only abundant uncertainty. The IPCC process is a sham, a mechanism for turning vague scientific statements into headline-grabbing alarmism. Drastic actions such as mandated cuts in carbon emissions would be imprudent.

Alternative sources of energy are fine, they say, but let's not be naive. We are an energy-intensive civilization. To obtain the kind of energy we need, we must burn fossil fuels. We must emit carbon. That's the real world.

Since the late 1980s, when oil, gas, coal, auto and chemical companies formed the Global Climate Coalition, industries have poured millions of dollars into a campaign to discredit the emerging global-warming consensus. The coalition disbanded a few years ago, but the skeptic community remains.

Many skeptics work in think tanks, such as the George C. Marshall Institute or the National Center for Policy Analysis. They have the ear of leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The skeptics helped scuttle any possibility that the United States would ratify the Kyoto treaty that would have committed the nation to cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. (Conservatives object to the treaty for, among other things, not requiring reductions by developing nations such as China and India.)

The skeptics point to the global-temperature graph for the past century. Notice how, after rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the temperature suddenly levels off. No — it goes down! For the next 35 years! If the planet is getting steadily warmer because of Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II?

Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!

Sea-level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

There are all these ... anomalies.

The skeptics scoff at climate models. They're just computer programs. They have to interpret innumerable feedback loops, all the convective forces, the evaporation, the winds, the ocean currents, the changing albedo (reflectivity) of Earth's surface, on and on and on.

Normal, natural?

Bill Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed.

Sterling Burnett, a skeptic who is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, says that even if he's wrong about global warming, mandating cuts in carbon emissions would mean economic disaster.

The skeptics don't have to win the argument. They just have to stay in the game, keep things stirred up and make sure the politicians don't pass any laws that have dangerous climate change as a premise. They're winning that battle. The Senate held hearings this spring but has put off action for now. The Bush administration is hoping for some kind of technological solution and won't commit itself to cuts in emissions.

The skeptics have a final trump in the argument: Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant — it's fertilizer.

Politicized debate

The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free-market capitalism. The divisive nature of global warming isn't helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, thinks the politicized debate has made it almost impossible to talk sensibly about the issue.

"There seems to be the general feeling that somehow the administration doesn't feel that climate change is happening," he says. "That's completely wrong." The administration just doesn't think the problem can be solved with the "magic wand" of regulation.

Gray has the honor of delivering the closing remarks at the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando, Fla. "I think there's a lot of foolishness going on," Gray says. Hurricanes aren't getting worse — we're just in an uptick of a regular cycle. But the alarmists won't let anyone believe that.

"The world is boiling! It's getting worse and worse!" Gray shouts. "Hell is approaching."

The core of Gray's argument is that the warming of the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic as the Gulf Stream.

Warm water and cool water essentially rise and fall in a rhythm lasting decades. "I don't think this warming period of the last 30 years can keep on going," he says. "It may warm another three, five, eight years, and then it will start to cool."

Art Read
06-06-2006, 08:59 AM
(cont.)

"Gray's crusade against global warming "hysteria" began in the early 1990s, when he saw enormous sums of federal research money going toward computer modeling rather than his kind of science, the old-fashioned stuff based on direct observation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stopped giving him research grants. So did NASA. All the money was going to computer models. The modelers are equation pushers.

"They haven't been down in the trenches, making forecasts and understanding stuff!"

The news media are self-interested.

"Media people are all out for Pulitzer Prizes!"

The IPCC is elitist.

"They don't talk to us! I've never been approached by the IPCC."

"People in the fringes"

Of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research. Lindzen contends that water vapor and clouds, which will increase in a warmer world because of higher rates of evaporation, create "negative feedbacks" that counter the warming trend.

Lindzen argues that the climate models can't be right, because we've already raised CO2 and methane dramatically, and the planet simply hasn't warmed that much.

But Isaac Held, a NOAA modeler, says Lindzen is jumping the gun, because the greenhouse gases take time — decades, centuries — to have their full impact. Indeed, we've already made a "commitment" to warming. We couldn't stop global warming at this point if we closed every factory and curbed every car.

Held studied under Lindzen years ago and considers him a friend and a smart scientist — but highly contrarian.

"There're people like [Lindzen] in every field of science. There are always people in the fringes."

There's a certain kind of skeptic who has no patience for the official consensus, especially if it has the imprimatur of a government, or worse, the United Nations. They focus on ambiguities and mysteries and things that just don't add up. They say the Official Story can't possibly be true, because it doesn't explain the (insert inexplicable data point here). They set a high standard for reality — it must never be fuzzy around the edges.

The Web site Real Climate, run by a loose group of climate scientists, recently published a detailed rebuttal of Gray's theory, saying his claims about the ocean circulation lack evidence. The Web site criticized Gray for not adapting to the modern era of meteorology, "which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying."

The field has fully embraced numerical modeling, and Gray is increasingly on the fringe. His cranky skepticism has become a tired act among younger scientists.

When Gray is asked who his intellectual soul mates are regarding global warming, he responds, "I have nobody really to talk to about this stuff."

In Orlando, Gray has the honor of closing the hurricane conference with a speech. He talks of global-warming foolishness, untrusty numerical models, underappreciated ocean circulation, overly dramatized CO2 increases, the crazy complexity of the weather.

"It becomes an absolute can of worms!"

In 20 years, he likes to say, the world will have cooled, and everyone will know he was right all along. When that happens, he says, he hopes someone will put flowers on his grave.

Is time running out?

The fog of uncertainty surrounding climate change is routinely cited as a reason to wait before making cuts in greenhouse emissions. But if we wait for that fog to break, we'll wait forever.

Moreover, we don't even know all the things that we don't know. James Hansen, the prominent NASA scientist, points out that the models don't realistically include ice sheets and the biosphere — all the plants and animals on Earth. The global climate surely has more surprises for us.

Hansen thinks we have less than 10 years to make drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions, lest we reach a "tipping point" at which the climate will be out of our control.

Hansen may be a step ahead of the consensus — but that doesn't mean he's wrong. In the brutally hot summer of 1988, Hansen testified before Congress that the signal of global warming could already be detected amid the noise of natural climate variation. Many of his colleagues scoffed. They thought he'd gotten ahead of the hard data.

Judy Curry, a Georgia Tech climate scientist, says: "I thought he was playing politics. But, damn it, he was right."

Curry, who thinks the skeptics have mounted a "brilliant disinformation campaign," says climate change is being held to a different standard from other societal threats: The skeptics want every uncertainty nailed down before any action is taken.

"Why is that standard being applied to greenhouse warming and not to other risks, like terrorism or military risks or avian flu?" she asks.

Mainstream climate scientists readily accept that there is natural variation in the system. For example, greenhouse gases alone can't melt the Arctic at the alarming rate that has been observed recently. Americans sorting through this issue may feel constrained by all the unknowns. Perhaps they need to adapt to uncertainty, to see uncertainty as the norm, and not as a sign of scientific failure.

Or as an excuse to do nothing.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company"

Joe (SoCal)
06-06-2006, 09:00 AM
What would be wrong with rounding up the best and the brightest minds studying the various aspects of the issue, coming from differing opinions as to cause, effect, extent etc. and having a series of primetime debates on TV? If this is, as Gore et al are saying, a potentially civilization ending problem you'd think our journalistic community would serve us better thusly, rather than publishing and broadcasting one sided political diatatribes. That they don't do this makes me very suspicious of the science and the politics around it.

American Idol gets more Voters than the presidential election, go figure

As for rounding up the best and the brightest minds studying the various aspects of the issue, coming from differing opinions as to cause, effect, extent etc. Its been done and the OVERWHELMING evidence is that global warming is a fact.

Nicholas Carey
06-06-2006, 12:02 PM
Where does the allusion to Kool Aid come from? I see it posted here now and then, but it's relevance escapes me.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/drinktheKool-Aid.asp


drink the Kool-Aid v. To become a firm believer in something; to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly

Example Citation:
One top executive named McMahon, the treasurer, was known for going around the company after he met with Skilling, Lay, and Fastow, and they directed him to do some bogus deal and say, 'Well, we've all got to go drink the Kool-Aid.' — William Lerach, quoted in Marie Brenner, "The Enron Wars," Vanity Fair, April, 2002

Earliest Citation:

You don't follow anyone blindly, my brothers and sisters . . . . We love Marion Barry. He is the mayor . . . . But if Marion Barry disrespects us, we will cry out . . . . We will not blindly drink the Kool-Aid any longer . . . . — Cathy Hughes, transcript from a radio call-in show as reported in "Being Stood Up by Mayor Leaves Radio Host Fuming," The Washington Post, July 17, 1987

Notes:
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which members of the Peoples Temple cult committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid (although some say the drink of choice was actually Flav-R-Aid).
From Wikipedia:


"Drinking the Kool-Aid"
The idiomatic expression "drinking the Kool-Aid" was originally a reference to the Merry Pranksters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Pranksters), a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Kesey) who in the early 1960's traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD) was legal at that time). Those who "drank the Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test." "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view.

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is also now closely associated with the 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978) cult mass-suicide in Jonestown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown), Guyana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana). Jim Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones), the leader of the Peoples Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple), convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid) laced with potassium cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_cyanide). In what is now commonly called the "Jonestown Massacre," 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the brew and died. (The discrepancy between the idiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom) and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid's relative obscurity versus the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.)

One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, "Don’t drink the Kool-Aid." This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side," or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly."

The phrase can also be used in the opposite sense to indicate that one has blindly embraced a particular philosophy or perspective (a "Kool-Aid drinker"). This usage is generally limited to those in or commenting on United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) politics, but also appears in discussions on computer technology, where someone who is a staunch advocate for a particular technology is described as having "drunk the Kool-Aid". This is also frequently used in discussions about sports; when a fan makes an overly-optimistic prediction or hopeful statement, usually about a traditionally woeful team or franchise, others may comment that he is "drinking the Kool-Aid." This is the only usage of "Kool-Aid" that non-American speakers of English are likely to recognise.

Fast Company -- http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/92/debunk.html -- sez that "drinking the Kool-Aid" is
corporate-speak for immersing oneself in a cultlike culture. Appearing in the 1980s and later applied to many a dotcom staffer, the persistent expression clearly wasn't just the flavor of the month. showBucketPromo();
(http://trax.fastcompany.com/k/w/hiringcenter/monster/promo-box)
The authors of Hard Drive (John Wiley, 1992), a book about Microsoft, quoted one employee observing of his coworkers, "If Bill [Gates] said drink Kool-Aid, they would do it." And The New York Times cited one analyst who said of certain Time Warner executives: "The AOL guys have got to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and get on the team."

The Kool-Aid-cult connection was concocted, of course, after the 1978 tragedy in Guyana, where more than 900 followers of Jim Jones consumed a grape-flavored cocktail containing cyanide. It remains the largest modern-day mass suicide on record.


document.write(ibHtml1);

Nick Scheuer
06-06-2006, 01:21 PM
I hadn't known the association with Jamestown.

Moby Nick

troutman
06-06-2006, 01:31 PM
Jonestown, named for its late founder. Can't imagine anyone thinking that expression is insensitive to the dead. But then maybe some are real sensitive. Its entered our language and is very useful in describing certain behavior.

troutman
06-06-2006, 01:33 PM
So let me get this straight. The left's eggheads tout global Warming so they can get big Grants to study it. And the right's eggheads say its a myth and get paid by the auto and energy companies? Wonder which group stands to make the most money??

Meerkat
06-06-2006, 01:39 PM
If Gray supports the administration's position I would think they would fund him, not the other way around.

There may have been a medieval warming period, but it's the first I've heard of it. On the other hand, I've heard of the "mini-ice age" lasting about 300 years in medieval times.

If he's counting on the Gulf Stream to cool things off, how does he account for the geological evidence that the Gulf Stream has stopped flowing in the past?

Then there's the new Oklahoma Desert, but let's not go there! ;)

Rick Clark
06-06-2006, 06:32 PM
There you go no more burning wood and coal in the stoves, you will have to find a cleaner way to heat you home.

Get on the bicycle to run eran's.

And the list goes on and on to clean up this old world.:)

Meerkat
06-06-2006, 11:31 PM
What would be wrong with rounding up the best and the brightest minds studying the various aspects of the issueDon't wait up for a call! :D

mariner2k
06-07-2006, 08:11 AM
someone pointed out to me that since the industrial revolution...which wasn't all that long ago...the earth has changed dramatically. I always thought that was quite obvious.

Milo Christensen
06-07-2006, 08:28 AM
Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Meerkat
06-07-2006, 11:53 AM
Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.Stephen King writes better horror fiction. :p

Milo Christensen
06-07-2006, 12:02 PM
Stephen King writes better horror fiction. :p

Certainly, he has the punishments of the unbelievers as written in the Bible to draw on for inspiration.

Meerkat
06-07-2006, 01:14 PM
Fiction is fiction. The Bible isn't even very good fiction.

Dan McCosh
06-07-2006, 01:59 PM
The main problem with an apocolyptic view of the future of global warming is that there is no way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel and other man-made greenhouse gases without dramatically reducing the world's human population. Most of the greenhouse gases are produced directly or indirectly by contempory technology used to grow food. That is not a process easily reversed.

Art Read
06-07-2006, 02:15 PM
And stop eating BigMacs! All those cows grazing in the deforested amazon basin are farting too much!

John Bell
06-07-2006, 02:21 PM
Righto, Dan. You hit on the main trouble I have with enviromental alarmists. I'm fearful the cure is much, much worse than the disease. The kind of hysteria we're hearing about global warming from environmental activists is dangerous in that it leads people to believe that any measure, no matter how draconian, is justifiable to turn back the coming apocalypse. I once read where Paul Watson (Sea Shepard Society) suggested the planet's carrying capacity for humans is in the high six figures. Even killing off vast nmbers of people because we can't feed them without burning fossil fuels would be justifiable because it "saves" the planet.

The reason humans are so successful as a species is that we are the most adaptable species. I'd rather stick with the proven to work "adapt" approach than the untried, untested, and unproven "control the weather" approach. Things will be different than they are now, but they always are, aren't they?

Paul Pless
06-07-2006, 02:23 PM
Jesus Christ! Can't you rats come up with something original to argue about?

This topic comes up at least twice a week down here for the last three years and not a single mind has been changed regarding any of it.

BrianW
06-07-2006, 02:29 PM
Paul,

We're trying the Bible approach this time. But I don't think it's sticking. ;)

Oh, and you said 'Jesus Christ' in a religion thread! Bad form. :D :D :D

JimD
06-07-2006, 02:32 PM
Jesus Christ! Can't you rats come up with something original to argue about?

This topic comes up at least twice a week down here for the last three years and not a single mind has been changed regarding any of it.

Paul, while you're at it would you mind cutting and pasting your above remark into about 99% of all threads in the bilge?:D

PeterSibley
06-07-2006, 04:22 PM
" The reason humans are so successful as a species is that we are the most adaptable species. I'd rather stick with the proven to work "adapt" approach than the untried, untested, and unproven "control the weather" approach. Things will be different than they are now, but they always are, aren't they? "

We have a lot in common with cancer cells really don't we ? Everything is fine 'til the host dies.

Meerkat
06-07-2006, 07:17 PM
The main problem with an apocolyptic view of the future of global warming is that there is no way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel and other man-made greenhouse gases without dramatically reducing the world's human population. Most of the greenhouse gases are produced directly or indirectly by contempory technology used to grow food. That is not a process easily reversed.
Bird Flu. If not Bird Flu, something... :eek:

Meerkat
06-07-2006, 07:18 PM
We have a lot in common with cancer cells really don't we ? Everything is fine 'til the host dies.

Aaaahem.... :( :eek: :(

John Bell
06-07-2006, 07:20 PM
Bird Flu. If not Bird Flu, something... :eek:

Sounds as though your rooting for something horrible to happen...

Meerkat
06-07-2006, 07:54 PM
Sounds as though your rooting for something horrible to happen..."Horrible" is a human term. I think that we've overpopulated the planet and a correction is necessary and will happen. Whether it's disease, famine due to radical climate changes or the magnetosphere disappearing for a time as the poles shift (in progress as we speak) I think something is likely to happen in the next 100 years or less.

It will be horrible for the survivors, but it will improve the overall health of the planet. Hopefully enough civilization will survive to remember why it happened.

PeterSibley
06-07-2006, 07:56 PM
Sounds as though your rooting for something horrible to happen...
Not rooting for, you don't have to root for night to follow day.Any study of the effects of feral populations of animals ,free to multiply without normal contraints of predation and disease result in an absolute limit to populations then a crash, usually catastrophic.Not a popular theory these days but quite demonstratable ,especially in Australia.

Meerkat
06-07-2006, 08:13 PM
Closer to home, look at the disease and etc. in deer and elk herds. We need those cougar and wolves back.

BrianW
06-07-2006, 08:34 PM
Captain Trips!

PeterSibley
06-07-2006, 08:40 PM
Captain Trips!

translation for your non US audience ?

BrianW
06-07-2006, 08:50 PM
translation for your non US audience ?

Captain Trips was the slang name for the disease that killed most the population in Stephen Kings book, The Stand.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-07-2006, 08:53 PM
as posted by Captain Putz.

Joe (SoCal)
06-07-2006, 08:55 PM
Brian I read "The Stand" while coming down with the flu :eek: That was a trip :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-07-2006, 08:59 PM
Randall Flagg, the Walkin Dude....

BruinW, the sitting down sleeping chubby dude.

BrianW
06-07-2006, 11:19 PM
PreMenstrualJackass.

I like BruinW, I may change my handle. :)

Paul G.
06-08-2006, 02:20 AM
I think you will find that global warming is a theory. Some dry academic idea that has caught hold of the public imagination. Now every climate "event" is attributed to it. From hurricanes to cold snaps its all GW, and when some film maker produces a FILM about it Oh golly gosh IT MUST BE TRUE:eek:

Rick Starr
06-08-2006, 07:38 AM
...Along with the "unimpeachable" Al Gore, in whom I once had great hope, as spokesman. What better belwether to divide the herd for (intellectual) culling, so to speak, than America's most charismatic buffoon?

Some of you may recall that my lovely and talented wife was featured in the National Geographic on global warming. Inwardly she cringes at this sort of baseless politicization of this (or any) issue, yet she welcome one benefit of it: that money--often lots of it--gets spent on monitoring and research in valid, useful programs that would never otherwise have seen funding.

Take note that two corals, Acropora palmata and cervicornis, have both been listed as threatened species, affording them some protection and drawing considerable attention to and funding to reef monitoring and protection. All indications are that these species were and are pivotal in atmospheric "health".

It is through such small, nearly invisible steps that widespread change often comes about, and upon which such charlatains as Gore and a host of others try to capitalize politically.

Leon m
06-08-2006, 07:52 AM
I think you will find that global warming is a theory. :

I think we'll find that you have your head burried in the sand.

Whats it going to take to wake you people up?

Art Read
06-08-2006, 08:03 AM
"Whats it going to take to wake you people up?"

Facts, perhaps?

PeterSibley
06-08-2006, 08:05 AM
No Art , I very much doubt they would .

John Bell
06-08-2006, 08:29 AM
...but it will improve the overall health of the planet.

I don't hold with your opinion that humans are an undesirable infestation. Why does your side seem to be filled with such deep self-loathing?

High C
06-08-2006, 08:38 AM
I think we'll find that you have your head burried in the sand.

Whats it going to take to wake you people up?

Leon, it's important to distinguish between:
a) observed variations in the climate, and:

b) variations in the climate attributable to man

When one of us who doesn't believe B says so, we are jumped on by a number of people who vigorously argue A in response. When someone challenges the "global warming" theory, it's not a challenge of A, it's a challenge of B. We all know that the climate is not stable and that it never has been, don't we?

When we ask for proof of B, we are not asking for temperature records or pictures of melting glaciers. That does nothing to prove man's alleged involvement. Glaciers were melting and reforming long before man cranked up his first automobile.

It would go a long way to make these discussions a lot less contentious and confusing if we would all take careful note of the distinctions between A, and B.

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 08:39 AM
Between Art and HiC who's buying the pitchers of Kool-Aid ? :D :D :D

John Bell
06-08-2006, 08:41 AM
Between Art and HiC who's buying the pitchers of Kool-Aid ? :D :D :D

Just 'cuz your kool-aid is green and theirs is red doesn't mean you aren't drinking kool-aid. Same stuff, different flavor. :rolleyes:

Art Read
06-08-2006, 08:45 AM
"Whats it going to take to wake you people up?"

Facts, perhaps?


___________________________________


No Art , I very much doubt they would ."

___________________________________


I agree, Peter. We are unfortunately besieged with a political argument over a natural phenomenon. One side argues that global warming is real, it's our fault and that we need to reverse every wrong headed energy policy that has "fueled" this modern world. The other side argues that we are simply seeing a typical fluctuation in climatic patterns and that human impact is marginal. One side feels the evidence is strong enough to dictate a broad based, economically seismic restructuring of human intercourse, the other side believes that simply allowing "nature" to run it's course is the only viable, practical option. One side sees "good" coming from any effort to combat global warming in that it's all good for the environment anyway. The other deplores yet another bureaucratic quagmire of good intentions achieving nothing.

High C
06-08-2006, 08:45 AM
Just 'cuz your kool-aid is green and theirs is red doesn't mean you aren't drinking kool-aid. Same stuff, different flavor. :rolleyes:

Would someone please explain to Joe that his understanding of the Kool-Aid thing is completely backwards?

Oh well, it's hopeless... :rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 08:46 AM
Yea no worries John ,you Gator boy talk to me in about a month when hurricane season is in full bloom. Then talk to me about global warming and the wanton destruction of the Mississippi delta by man. While I bask in the sweltering 100 hazy hot and humid NY Summer. Yeaaaaaaa you two got a leg to stand on, better be wearing waders.

Milo Christensen
06-08-2006, 08:48 AM
The reality is that climate change is a given. Doesn't matter the cause, humans, termite methane, deforestation/desertification, changes in steering currents, solar output levels. I find it hard to believe that the cause of climate change causes so much debate.

Why don't we focus on the fact that climate change is an historical fact and start discussing methods of remediation. Whether it be global warming or mini-ice age from a volcanic eruption.

We have the ability to predict with fair accuracy what a given change will lead to. This ability will only improve.

Therefore, we can introduce changes that will remediate the climate change. Be it fertilization of an area of the ocean that's reasonably barren to planting trees to release of energy absorbent/reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere, we can do what we want to modify the planet's climate.

John Bell
06-08-2006, 08:50 AM
...better be wearing waders.

I live 1100' MSL. If I'm in waders, you're in a submarine. Bwa ha yourself yankee boy!

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 08:52 AM
I live on top of a mountain in the Hudson highlands obviously your geography is as good as your climatology :D :D :D

Art Read
06-08-2006, 09:03 AM
Sold that McMansion yet, Joe?:D

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 09:23 AM
Sold that McMansion yet, Joe?:D

Which one ? Sold a few Mansions and already sold one pre construction of the sub-development homes and waiting on a counter offer on an other. All sold before breaking ground. How's your day going ? ;)

And John what's you Zip Code? I cant find Lower Acworth, LA on Google earth I can find Lower Acworth, GA.

Art Read
06-08-2006, 09:27 AM
You don't "get" irony, eh? But thanks for playing!

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 09:43 AM
You don't "get" irony, eh? But thanks for playing!

No its you who doesn't

This is the house that you call McMansion I just sold.

http://mccaffreyrealty.com/listings/BMC1118/Country%20Estate/FBA466-0000-FPCR-LG[1].jpg

$849,000
Location: Cold Spring, NY

Description: 2,600 Sq. Ft.

First Floor Master
4 Bedrooms
3 1/2 Bathrooms
1 Fireplace

Covered Porch
2 – Car Garage

Uses a geothermal heating/cooling system

Fitz
06-08-2006, 09:43 AM
Well, based on my geological training and at least the last 420,000 years of record, I kind of like the coming Ice Age theory. We are interglacial now. Things are supposed to warm up, but look out.

Check out Figure 5 here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story2.html#ex1

Probably Gore relies on this figure too, but does anyone notice a pattern?

Here's another interesting story:

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046

Joe could find himself sipping his Kool aid under a mile think slab of ice. Actually, it takes some time for the snow to accumulate, but it's happened before and will happen again. These things are cyclical, probably based on the Earth's orbit, and we are due. The record also suggests this climate thing swings pretty quickly - on a geological scale- thousand(s) of years.

Anyone notice that the South Pole has been getting more snow since things warmed up a bit too.

I've said it before on the Forum. Here's a hot tip. Buy stock in snow shovels!:eek: :p

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 09:46 AM
So Fitz your saying man has no direct negative impact on the global climate ? It is what it is so to speak?

Also the data you present is a speculation as stated in the title Mechanisms that Can Cause Abrupt Climate Change

Its basically a cause and effect on how a system can happen, not conclusive data. Just more Bull**** you are trying to pass as factual data.... TYPICAL

Art Read
06-08-2006, 09:50 AM
Perhaps it's really NOT "all about Joe!":D

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 09:57 AM
Nope it is ALWAYS all about Joe :D

Didn't you read the book, Joe for Dummies ? ;)

FWIW John Bell this is my elevation. See the mountain just above Pollepel Island? I live on top of that ;)

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid207/pb6b22d32d8e440ee301369a996023ace/ee9b91aa.jpg

And this is Slidell, Louisiana

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid207/pb6dd8f6890ac10370898240ca073e243/ee9b8aa6.jpg

AAAJ

Bwaaaaaaa ha ha :D

Art Read
06-08-2006, 10:04 AM
:) :d

Fitz
06-08-2006, 10:08 AM
The glacier will come down the U-shaped valley known as the Hudson and pluck you right off!

Joe, there's plenty of data there. The difference is as a scientist I'm supposed to keep an open mind and consider all of the data.

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 10:14 AM
The glacier will come down the U-shaped valley known as the Hudson and pluck you right off!

Yea that happened about the Late Precambrian and Early Paleozoic period. Or about 1.3 to 1.1 billion years ago, dang sorry I missed it. :D :D :D

http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/highlands/highlands.html

Milo Christensen
06-08-2006, 10:20 AM
This coulda been a good thread.

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 10:21 AM
All threads sort of die out after 3 pages sometimes they regroup sometimes they die. It's natures way ;)

John Bell
06-08-2006, 10:39 AM
I'm guessing you live about here (http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4593350&e=592325&datum=nad83) about 500' MSL.

Lower Acworth is a joke, means I can say I live in LA. Get it?

Kennesaw, GA, el 1092' MSL.

Edited to change to new, more accurate location.

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 10:44 AM
About 1,100 What's a few feet between friends. :D

John Bell
06-08-2006, 10:58 AM
Good news is when the sea level rises, your property will be waterfront long before mine. Think of what will do for the (already outrageously inflated) value of your home!

You rich yankee bastards get all the breaks....;) :D

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 11:11 AM
Hey I'm a sailor more water for me :D :D :D

BrianW
06-08-2006, 11:54 AM
I thought the oceans were going to rise about 6 ft. That would be perfect for me. Seems during the last mini-ice age, S.E. Alaska was an island of land surrounded by ice. Things are looking good around here! :)

Leon m
06-08-2006, 01:02 PM
"Whats it going to take to wake you people up?"

Facts, perhaps?

Nope ...theres plenty of them...but still your head remains firmly planted in the sand.

Now I know how the natives felt when trying to negotiat with the white man...Hopeless.

Personally, Beyond your "Facts"...I have been deeply emersed in nature all my life.Not only in my private life, but in my job, and I don't give a damn what the scientist,or the boys in Washington say...I can feel it in my bones ...thing aren't right with the balance of nature...and YOU BETTER WAKE UP !

High C
06-08-2006, 01:06 PM
Nope ...theres plenty of them...but still your head remains firmly planted in the sand.

Now I know how the natives felt when trying to negotiat with the white man...Hopeless.

Personally, Beyond your "Facts"...I have been deeply emersed in nature all my life.Not only in my private life, but in my job, and I don't give a damn what the scientist,or the boys in Washington say...I can feel it in my bones ...thing aren't right with the balance of nature...and YOU BETTER WAKE UP !

Wake up to what, Leon, A...or B? You did read my "A or B" post, didn't you? Which are you talking about?

Why don't you guys ever address this important distinction more clearly, instead of in wild emotional ways? It's impossible to sell any idea, right or wrong, in such a fashion.

Wake up to what!?!?

BrianW
06-08-2006, 01:12 PM
...I have been deeply emersed in nature all my life.Not only in my private life, but in my job,...

As an 'International man of mystery'? :)

Paul G.
06-08-2006, 04:02 PM
I think there is one absolute certainty in this global warming farce

Someone is going to pay.............YOU:eek:

Paul G.
06-08-2006, 04:06 PM
WHOA :eek: Paul thats shocking, and exactly where did you do your post doctorate work in climatology? Because your opinion is somewhat different than my friend who works at Columbia at the NASA GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Well Joe my friend says global warming is a crock so there and my friend is bigger than your friend:D

PatCox
06-08-2006, 04:17 PM
I feel the weather is subtly but fundamentally different from 40 years ago in my youth.

The most pronounced difference, the one that sticks out for me, is that winter thunderstorms have now become common. Thunder in the winter, when I was young, was so unusual it was kinda spooky. Lately, though, the forecasters regularly forecast "thundersnow." its strange to me.

ishmael
06-08-2006, 04:30 PM
My point is not to argue about this from ignorance. I would like to see a worldwide debate, well publicized and presented with all the various opinions.

I don't know what is going on, though I've looked into it more than most.

It seems clear that the Artic is warming, yet there are good stats that say the Antarctic is actually accumulating ice. The snows of the African mountain glaciers are melting, as are the glaciers of Greenland. The Artic icecap is shrinking, that's well documented.

What is really going on here? Maybe the hoi poloi haven't the savvy to grasp it. Maybe the scientists aren't in agreement. But turning it into a political football is the absolute worst thing that can happen. Some cooler heads(no pun intended) should make a forceful effort to bring the science to the public. If those who seem to know are correct -- the world is in dire straights because of manmade gases -- then let's hear it in open debate with those who disagree.

As long as such a public debate isn't forthcoming any change needed won't happen. Trying to browbeat folks with agendas will only harden their opposition to change.

P.S. I'll hold my "carbon footprint" up against almost anyone's on this forum. But I'm eccentric. If the world economy depended on people who don't, by nature and by ethic, consume, the whole thing would collapse, overnight. And consumption is what drives this carbon cycle, no matter how clean you try to make it.

Meerkat
06-08-2006, 05:22 PM
My point is not to argue about this from ignorance. Why not? That's what you usually do! :p

ishmael
06-08-2006, 07:25 PM
So, calling for a public debate, with all the cards on the table, is arguing from ignorance?

There is a line where ideology becomes fascism. By your comments, David, you've crossed it.

Don't debate, don't think, don't reason. We know the truth, follow us. If that isn't some weird environmental totalitarianism it's a pretty good facsimile.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-08-2006, 07:41 PM
The debate has effectively alreadly taken place on Global Warming. It's over. The facts are in. The planet is heading rapidly for a warm period that will destabilize the global weather pattern. The world will become a lot less habitable.

This isn't news anymore. It's more about the specifics of how fast, and how nasty. The naysayers are a just a mumbling rabble of the also-ran. The fact that there are some of them on this forum, whether they be scientists or bear hunters or hermits, doesn't surprise me. The debate is still over.

John Bell
06-08-2006, 07:58 PM
The debate is still over.


Kool-aid.

Read your tag line....

Joe (SoCal)
06-08-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )
WHOA Paul thats shocking, and exactly where did you do your post doctorate work in climatology? Because your opinion is somewhat different than my friend who works at Columbia at the NASA GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


Well Joe my friend says global warming is a crock so there and my friend is bigger than your friend:D

Yup he probably is. My friends a scientist so he is kind of a slacker geek, he has that Ethan Hawke look. But he's a avid runner so he could run fast ;) That and he is very very smart ;) :)

ishmael
06-08-2006, 08:55 PM
Peter said:

"The debate has effectively alreadly taken place on Global Warming."

Oh really? I don't hear any debate, haven't as long as I've been listening.

And don't diss me, I've watched it unfold on blogs. But real, public debate, no. I hear the diatribes, the endless drone of doom and how bad it's going to be. Debate?

Why? All you hear on the networks is that it's happening, it's dire, better tuck you head in, it's bad. Debate? What a joke.

Meerkat
06-08-2006, 09:01 PM
So, you're qualified to engage in such a debate are you?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the phrase "peer reviewed scientific journal?"

Just because they didn't give you a call doesn't mean there's been no debate - between and among those qualified to know what they're talking about.

ishmael
06-09-2006, 05:14 AM
Meerkat,

Not to toot my own horn, but I have a batchelor's degree in environmental science. I graduated with honors, Phi Beta Kappa from a fine private university and worked in the field for four years before taking a flyer and moving to Maine to build boats. I'm no climatologist, don't pretend to be(my professional metier was nuclear health physics and environmental monitoring with an emphasis on hydrology) but I am in a position to take more than a cursory look at the science of an issue.

What I'm calling for is PUBLIC debate. It's the job of our journalists to bring it to the public, explain the various sides of an issue. It's not the job of Joe and Jane Q to dig through obscure journals.

It's being reported now is as though there is no dissent among scientists about the variety of issues climate change involves. I know enough science to know that isn't true. Our mainstream science journalists have failed us, badly. The information is out there, but you have to dig for it. As it has the potential to be a very dire issue indeed, I think it deserves much better coverage. That's all I'm saying.

WORLD ENDING, IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT! makes a much better headline than CLIMATE CHANGING, SCIENTISTS DEBATE CAUSES, but it doesn't make it true.

Joe (SoCal)
06-09-2006, 05:48 AM
Meerkat,

Not to toot my own horn, but I have a batchelor's degree in environmental science in environmental science. I graduated with honors, Phi Beta Kappa from a fine private university and worked in the field for four years before taking a flyer and moving to Maine to build boats. I'm no climatologist, don't pretend to be(my professional metier was nuclear health physics and environmental monitoring with an emphasis on hydrology) but I am in a position to take more than a cursory look at the science of an issue.

So you are not a published scientist, working in the field just a regular Joe Q with an opinion.


What I'm calling for is PUBLIC debate. It's the job of our journalists to bring it to the public, explain the various sides of an issue. It's not the job of Joe and Jane Q to dig through obscure journals.

Ooooh great idea lets have nonscientist debate the validity of a scientific fact. Sure its fun but that sort of thinking makes things like the sham of Intelligent Design possible.

I can think of nothing more backwards thinking. Gee what's next a public debate decides whats better unified string theory or quantum physics ? Take a poll and thats the theory period. :rolleyes:


It's being reported now is as though there is no dissent among scientists about the variety of issues climate change involves. I know enough science to know that isn't true. Our mainstream science journalists have failed us, badly. The information is out there, but you have to dig for it. As it has the potential to be a very dire issue indeed, I think it deserves much better coverage. That's all I'm saying.

There is no dissent among reputable scientists, but the debate still rages between Joe Q Public ( I thought it was John Q Public? )and those with bachelor's degree in environmental science.


WORLD ENDING, IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT! make a much better headline than CLIMATE CHANGING, SCIENTISTS DEBATE CAUSES, but it doesn't make it true.

Scientist have already debated. Sorry Ish I will listen to my ave a friend who is a NASA Scientist. He works at Columbia at the NASA GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is by trade a professor of Climatology, over your batchelor's degree in environmental science. He says with out a doubt Global Warming is a fact.

Besides HOW would could I trust a guy who cant even spell bachelor's degree correctly. ;)

ishmael
06-09-2006, 06:02 AM
Joe,

You've well established your scientific bona fides by saying the debate about global warming is an issue of running out of oxygen.

"Ooooh great idea lets have nonscientist debate the validity of a scientific fact."

No, I've called, again and again on this thread, to use the wonderful medium of television to get the scientists who dispute about this before the public. Let's hear what they have to say! Why is that so frightening to you?

PeterSibley
06-09-2006, 06:20 AM
The problem ,Ish, as I see it is that a debate is really impossible .

Who can judge the contributions of the opposing sides ? Who ,other than a realitively small number of specialist scientists in a very narrow field can judge the veracity of their observations ?
Certanly none of us can ,some of us have academic qualifications in fields vaguely associated , but are not experts.The general public ,with a much lower average scientific education has even less chance .

The next problem is the fog of disinformation ,exaggeration from all directions.Industry is obviously unimpressed with the idea of any restriction on profitable enterprise and various green groups probably exaggerate to dramatise their cause.

For the likes of you and I , the truth is VERY hard to differentiate from background noise.

And finally ...this is not a debate ,the sceptic community doesnt have to win their case ,they only have to maintain doubt...something there is obviously a lot of money going into doing .

Joe (SoCal)
06-09-2006, 06:25 AM
Joe,

You've well established your scientific bona fides by saying the debate about global warming is an issue of running out of oxygen.

"Ooooh great idea lets have nonscientist debate the validity of a scientific fact."

No, I've called, again and again on this thread, to use the wonderful medium of television to get the scientists who dispute about this before the public. Let's hear what they have to say! Why is that so frightening to you?

Im emailing my Nasa Climatologist buddy to see if he could join the WBF to weigh in. I have the luxury of having him over for BBQ's ;)

FWIW this is my Friends background
Ph.D., Physics, Cornell, 1991.

Physical Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and
Adjunct Professor, Dept. Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University

RESEARCH STATEMENT: My research addresses the role of transport in determining the large scale distributions of chemical constituents in the atmosphere and ocean. My tools range from idealized analytic models to full three-dimensional numerical models. I have worked on stratospheric transport and the exchange of material between the stratosphere and troposphere. Most recently I've become interested in tracers of ocean transport and their relationship to ocean storage of anthropogenic carbon. In addition, I've worked on developing general mathematical tools to infer transport information from tracers in a variety of geophysical settings.

Notes and essays related to some of my research projects:

Anthropogenic carbon in the Indian Ocean inferred from CFC12 using transit-time distributions (poster from WOCE meeting, San Antonio, 2002)
A curious transport property of a simple flow (and a bottle of champagne)
What age reveals (and doesn't reveal) about stratospheric transport
What's wrong with models of the stratosphere?
Notes on solving simple 1-D advection-diffusion equations
Stratosphere mean age data from Hall et al [1999] model intercomparison and evaluation

I just emailed him to see if he would like to join in our little debate. ;)

Bruce Taylor
06-09-2006, 06:30 AM
"Debate" isn't part of the scientific method.

Art Read
06-09-2006, 06:33 AM
"I don't give a damn what the scientist, or the boys in Washington say...I can feel it in my bones ..."

Well then! That settles it. I'll get out my checkbook, park my car, and start growing my own vegetables and building an ark! 'Cause if you "feel it in your bones", there's nothing left to discuss! LOL!

Leon m
06-09-2006, 06:50 AM
"I don't give a damn what the scientist, or the boys in Washington say...I can feel it in my bones ..."

Well then! That settles it. I'll get out my checkbook, park my car, and start growing my own vegetables and building an ark! 'Cause if you "feel it in your bones", there's nothing left to discuss! LOL!

Thank you ! Finaly somebody woke up.

JimD
06-09-2006, 06:58 AM
I don't really feel it in my bones. It's more like a pain in my ass. Dull, and aching.

Joe (SoCal)
06-09-2006, 07:10 AM
does he like wooden boats :)?
Yea as a matter of fact he is a big catboat fan :)

ishmael
06-09-2006, 07:22 AM
"Debate" isn't part of the scientific method."

Maybe not, in a strict sense, but scientists debate and dispute findings all the time, and that is part of the method.

My favorite example is Alfred Wegner, a German scientist who back in the early part of the last century looked at the globe and said, hmm, these continents once fit together. He was laughed at by the geophysicists of the day, and all the way up through the fifties when oceanographers discovered the mid-oceanic ridges and took a second look at his theories. Turns out, he was right, and we now have a semblance of understanding of continental drift.

We like to think of scientists in almost holy terms. They've become our priest confessors in an age of doubt and uncertainty. But they are as human as the next fellow, and orthodoxy is overturned with regularity. It takes awhile, scientists are human, the good ones a stubborn lot, but they are the first to agree that good science is a process not tied to outcome or political agenda.

And Peter, you might be correct that the masses are too ignorant for a public airing of all sides of this issue. But what is the alternative?

High C
06-09-2006, 07:26 AM
...For the likes of you and I , the truth is VERY hard to differentiate from background noise...

Hmmm...

huisjen
06-09-2006, 07:34 AM
There is no dissent among reputable scientists, but the debate still rages between Joe Q Public ( I thought it was John Q Public? )and those with bachelor's degree in environmental science.

I've got one of those. B.S. Environmental Science, UW Tacoma, 2002. No debate here. It's a real thing.

Dan

huisjen
06-09-2006, 07:36 AM
It's true that new ideas sometimes have trouble when confronting the old guard. In this case, human induced global warming is the new idea. Guess who the old guard is.

Dan

George Jung
06-09-2006, 07:45 AM
I hope your NASA friend joins in, though for the life of me, I don't know why he would .....
Nevertheless, this could be very educational... for us, and for him! (Though I suspect the parties will come away with different 'educations')

ishmael
06-09-2006, 07:50 AM
I'm a bit astounded, and dismayed, that the attitude about this is so hardened into opposing camps. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with contrary facts" seems the ethos, on both sides. That's not the way of science, and it shouldn't be the way of policy making.

Call me Quixotic, but I still think it's worth listening to all valid data and trying to hash this out. Again, what's the alternative? The drumbeat of how horrible we are as a species is self-defeating, and only hardens opinion on the other side, which says there is no problem here, let's keep riding the merry-go-round of consumption until doomsday.

Let's reason together. Let's at least try!

TomF
06-09-2006, 07:50 AM
Good distinction, Hich C, about global warming and the human inducement of it. The conflation occurs because for many reputable scientists, both issues have been settled.

I've said it before. My father-in-law, an internationally renowned scientist (geologist) headed up Canada's Royal Society for some years. He co-authored the Royal Society's study of global warming and its human components back in 1988.

Even at that time, Mike was convinced - he's become only more convinced by the data which has emerged in the intervening 18 years. Not only is global warming real (your point "A", JT), but there is a significant component of it which is directly related to human activity (your "B").

Mike's a smart lad - and has always been open to iconoclastic ideas which turn out to be so. He co-wrote the original papers in the 1950s proposing the idea of continental drift (building on Wegner, Ish) ... the furore in the scientific community to the concept that continents move? Oy! But it's ho-hum now.

Bruce Taylor
06-09-2006, 07:50 AM
He was laughed at by the geophysicists of the day,

You can't test a hypothesis by laughing at it. You can't test it by holding a "debate", either. You test it by experiment, and you publish your results.


We like to think of scientists in almost holy terms.

Do "we"? I don't. I have a high regard for the method, and an expectation that it will often be misused by lazy or muddleheaded practitioners.

ishmael
06-09-2006, 08:08 AM
That you don't, Bruce is aces. I don't either. But that doesn't mean the royal 'we' doesn't

Bruce Taylor
06-09-2006, 08:19 AM
But that doesn't mean the royal 'we' doesn't

That's not the "royal we", it's the "journalistic we," useful for making the kind of sloppy sociological observations that fill space the "Lifestyles" section of your newspaper.

Art Read
06-09-2006, 08:25 AM
"...we can start by not squandering our resources needlessly..."

Now we are finding some common ground. Living a lifestyle that has the least negative impact on the envronment as is possible/practical is something that any enlightened citizen of the world should aspire towards. Subjugating ourselves and our various economies to pseudo-scientific "feel good" policy that is based neither in reason nor in practicality is both ingenuous and self-defeating.

A telling quote from a global warming activist: "Even if all of our predictions and assumptions are wrong, the policies that we wish to implement would still be good for the environment."

By all means, let's take measures to protect the world from mankind's worst environmental excesses. But don't expect me to silently acquiesce to the unilateral dismantling of human progress in the name of "controlling climate".

What's that old saying? "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it..." I'm going to need a lot more convincing before I'll accept that the scientists who are now all screaming that "the sky is falling 'cause our computer models all say the world is heating up" are any more credible than the scientists who were just as convincingly arguing that the next ice age was upon on us just three short decades ago. Remember Y2K? I know a respected computer professor with a ten year's supply of tuna fish for sale... Cheap!:)

PeterSibley
06-09-2006, 07:39 PM
Art..Good points ,well made .

I'm in the process of reading "Coal, a Human History ",Babara Freese.Fossil fuels are so deeply intergrated into the fabric of human societies that ,to use your words, "to silently acquiesce to the unilateral dismantling of human progress in the name of "controlling climate" " is something that is just not going to happen,by anyone .Even if they wanted to.

There seems to be a tooth and nail rejection from industry to the human induced part of the hypothisis , even if the warming part is conceded.The concensis on that in the scientific community seems to me to be so general as to be acceptable .That industry rejects it so out of hand speaks most suspiciously of self interest .As Brian W often says ...."follow the money ".

Could you explain your problems with,
"A telling quote from a global warming activist: "Even if all of our predictions and assumptions are wrong, the policies that we wish to implement would still be good for the environment."
It seems to tie in with your agreement with,
"...we can start by not squandering our resources needlessly..."

We are not necessarily at opposite ends of this stick,the US has some of the best air quality laws in the world ,if the CO2 level is seen in this context , the debate changes somewhat.If it is seen in the same light as the SO2 level, it takes on a purely air quality definition and there is less of a gap between
the various camps.That industry fights th whole "warming " hypothisis is not a surprise have a look a the battle over SO2.

Llance
06-09-2006, 09:13 PM
Interesting bit of conversation. Some real info and a fair amount of diatrade with just enough BS thrown in from both sides to keep the temper of the participants on the rise. So lets look at the facts as we know them.

(note) When i speak of the earth, i am refering to land mass not the planet as a whole.

1. At some time in the past history of the planet the climate of the earth found above sea level was warmer than it is now. How much warmer is open to speculation.

2. The atmosphere/planet/earth, cooled off. How much is also open to speculation.

3. When the planet was warmer there were plants and crittters which were alive then which are not alive now. There are also some which surivied.

4. The atmosphere warmed again and there were different species of plants and animals which existed. And because the planet cooled yet again some died off. It is theory this die off and cooling was the result of extraplanetory forces, ie. an astroid.

5. This cycle of warming and cooling seems to take place over several millions of years but could happen "overnight" if certain conditions exist.

6. As recently as 50 years ago scientists were saying the planet was cooling off. Now they are saying it is warming up. When to believe?

7. If the planet is warming (Humm, isn't that the natural order of the thing, to be warmer than it is now) then likely it is returning to it's natural state. If it is cooling then the effects of the previous cooling cycle are still being felt in the climate.

8. If i remember correctly the first and the last warming trends lasted for many millions of years. And the between cooling periods lasted for a relative few million years.

9. So lets see; an astroid crashed into the planet about 65 million years ago and the planet is still feeling the effects of that impact. Humm, and the planet was on a warming trend as evidenced by the retreating of the ice fields of the last ice age. To see this in that perspective then "mans"contributation to the "warming" of the planet is only speeding up a natural process begun 65 million years ago.

10. The above being undisputed "facts" as i see this "debate", we are argueing about processes of nature which are in flux and which was not started nor will it be stopped by mans pultry attempts at infulencing the weather or climate conditions. We'd have better luck influencing the tides.

11. Hummm, the earth is warming, the ice caps are melting, the oceans are on the rise, the land will be covered with water. Seems to me this is a good time to set about building more boats.

Llance
Those persons who are without principle have no basis for honour. To such a person nothing is sacred.
(Legends Of The Star Dancer)

PeterSibley
06-09-2006, 09:42 PM
7. If the planet is warming (Humm, isn't that the natural order of the thing, to be warmer than it is now) then likely it is returning to it's natural state. If it is cooling then the effects of the previous cooling cycle are still being felt in the climate.

I think you will find it's the rate of rise that's causing concern.

Llance
06-10-2006, 07:13 PM
7. If the planet is warming (Humm, isn't that the natural order of the thing, to be warmer than it is now) then likely it is returning to it's natural state. If it is cooling then the effects of the previous cooling cycle are still being felt in the climate.

I think you will find it's the rate of rise that's causing concern.


If that be the case then we'd best be in a hurry to get those boats built, a'fore it all goes under water.

tmh1
06-11-2006, 09:22 PM
Haven't read this thead, but some of you might want to look at realclimate.org. One of my colleagues, Gavin Scmhidt, at NASA GISS/Columbia runs this. It's a good resource for reading about up-to-date issues being addressed by researchers in climate. It also spends considerable time debunking a lot of the smoke-and-mirror arguments of people who have an agenda to deny any human-induced impact on climate.

I havent seen "An Inconveniant Thread" yet (two young kids at home---it's hard to get out to the movies!). But, I've heard from my colleagues that it's sound, with only the odd minor oversight hear and there.

There's no doubt the Earth has about 0.6 degree C over the past 100 years, and there's virtually no doubt the causes are human-induced gaseous emissions to the atmosphere. Global climate models match quite well the trend (and ocillations) in global temperature over the 20th century when they include the known human greenhouse gas emissions and aerosols. Evidence from Earth's geologic climate history also indicate about this degree of temperature sensitivity to changes in atmoospheric greenhouse gases.

My own work addresses the ocean's role in uptake of industrial CO2---how much it's presently sopping up from the atmosphere (rough a third), and how that could change in future (likely decrease, leaving more in the atmosphere). The carbon cycle is complicated, and there are feedbacks that work both ways: warmer oceans take up less CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere, leading to more warming. On the other hand, more CO2 fertilizes vegetation, leading to more uptake of CO2, leaving less in the atmosphere. Present consensus is that the net feedbacks will be positive, enhancing the warming, though there's quite a bit of uncertainty here.

In my view, however, the most interesting, and important, areas of research is ice-sheet decay in Greenland and Antarctica. The physics of this process is poorly represented in present generation of global climate models. Ice sheets are dynamic, and as they crack, melt water at the surface can flow down to the base, lubrucating their motion over the rock below, accelerating their motion to the sea and their decay.

Globally-averaged, the Earth was about 1 degree warmer than today during the last interglacial period, roughly 125,000 years ago. At that time sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher. We're virtually guaranteed to get 1 degree warmer in the next few decades. Earth's history suggests an equilirbium response of 4 to 6 meters sea level rise. The big question is how rapid the ice-sheet response is to the warming? decades, centuries?

That's all I'll ramble on about.

Tim

geeman
06-11-2006, 11:53 PM
The maps I saw show NC coast moving much closer to but not actually over the Smoky Mtns.If its so,,it's gonna get mighty crowded in the inner parts of the states,,,,,,,,

Joe (SoCal)
06-12-2006, 04:55 AM
Hey Tim good to see ya join in ;)

Everyone say hello to my climatologist buddy Tim. ;)

Llance
06-12-2006, 06:00 AM
Welcome Tim, glad to have your input. Humm so with more water at the surface then isn't it likely there will be more of an intake of co2, thus reducing the effects?


lance
Those persons who are without principle have no basis for honour. To such a person nothing is sacred.
(Legends of the Star Dancer)

Joe (SoCal)
06-12-2006, 06:10 AM
:rolleyes: Lance yer the type of guy who would question Chuck Yeager about how to fly a plane, arent you ?

What credentials do you bring to the table ?

Again unless you missed it before

My buddies Tim's credentials.

Ph.D., Physics, Cornell, 1991.

Physical Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and
Adjunct Professor, Dept. Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University

RESEARCH STATEMENT: My research addresses the role of transport in determining the large scale distributions of chemical constituents in the atmosphere and ocean. My tools range from idealized analytic models to full three-dimensional numerical models. I have worked on stratospheric transport and the exchange of material between the stratosphere and troposphere. Most recently I've become interested in tracers of ocean transport and their relationship to ocean storage of anthropogenic carbon. In addition, I've worked on developing general mathematical tools to infer transport information from tracers in a variety of geophysical settings.

Notes and essays related to some of my research projects:

Anthropogenic carbon in the Indian Ocean inferred from CFC12 using transit-time distributions (poster from WOCE meeting, San Antonio, 2002)
A curious transport property of a simple flow (and a bottle of champagne)
What age reveals (and doesn't reveal) about stratospheric transport
What's wrong with models of the stratosphere?
Notes on solving simple 1-D advection-diffusion equations
Stratosphere mean age data from Hall et al [1999] model intercomparison and evaluation

Joe (SoCal)
06-12-2006, 07:26 AM
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig9-10d.gif

More on the Arctic
Filed under:
Climate Science

Arctic and Antarctic
— mike @ 8:34 am
By Michael Mann & Phil Jones (guest)

Svalbard, an Arctic island in the Northern North Atlantic, is predicted to warm considerably more than most of the rest of the earth in many model-based scenarios. See for example the figure to the right, which represents a relatively high-end IPCC Third Assessment Report scenario for the projected surface temperature difference between the period 2071 -2100 and 1961-1990. Svalbard is the island north of Norway at about 80N between 15-30E.

The enhanced warming in this region is related to the issue of polar amplification that we have discussed previously on RC. It also happens that the Svalbard meteorological station is the 2nd station in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) meteorological station list. This means that it tends to get noticed. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia maintains one prominent version of the global surface temperature data set and as part of its routine quality control, CRU flags any unusual (anomalous warm or cold) new measurements that come in. Svalbard has now been flagged consistently over the past several months, but the values have been confirmed as accurate by the Norwegian Met Service, which operates the Svalbard station.

Here are the recent Svalbard monthly surface temperature measurements, the long-term (1961-1990) means ("ybar") and standard deviations ("sd"), and associated anomalies i.e., departure from average ("delta") for Dec 2005 through April 2006 (all in degrees C):

Month Value ybar sd Delta
Dec 05 -3.8 -13.3 4.4 +9.5
Jan 06 -2.7 -15.3 4.7 +12.6
Feb 06 -9.8 -16.3 3.7 +6.5
Mar 06 -13.1 -15.8 3.7 +2.7
Apr 06 0.0 -12.4 2.7 +12.4
The numbers are fairly remarkable. April'06 was warmer than any previously recorded May, and January '06 was warmer than any previously recorded April. The previously warmest April was -7.0C (1996) -4.3C (2004). There is currently an absence of sea ice off much of the coast of Svalbard, which is also unprecedented for so early in the year.

The April mean temperature is almost 5 standard deviations above the mean, a "5 sigma event" in statistical parlance. Under the assumption of stationary 'normal' statistics, such an event is considered astronomically improbable (< 1 in 106), and, like the summer heat wave in Europe in 2003 (which was a 5 sigma event in Switzerland, 3 sigma over Europe as a whole), deserves special attention. As we have nonetheless remarked before on RC, particular events, even seasonally-persistent anomalies as unusual as these, do not "prove" anthropogenic warming. But in a statistical sense, large outliers like this make it more probable that the underlying distributions are shifting and give us a glimpse into the types of anomalies we might expect to become more common in the decades ahead.

Correction and update: (1 June) Micheal Shouler points out that we misread the previous April record (corrected above). And now that the May 06 data has come in at a record-breaking +0.9 C, our statement that April 06 was warmer than all previously recorded Mays is still true - but only just! Things move fast in this field...

Joe (SoCal)
06-12-2006, 07:28 AM
Scientific review of the movie

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299

10 May 2006
Al Gore’s movie
Filed under:
Climate Science

Reporting on climate
— eric @ 3:21 pm
by Eric Steig

Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father's tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore's sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn't the "wooden" Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.

ishmael
06-12-2006, 07:49 AM
Let me be clear. I'm not agin the theories that say human activity, our CO2 production, has contributed to a rise in temperatures. I'd just like to hear all sides.

When you get into it you realize the earth is a complex system. It's gone through five billion years of various changes. Our take of today is a tiny sliver. Getting down to it, there are too many of us wanting too much. Our outgassing probably is making the place warmer.

My favorite professor in college, a fine mind and a good dramatist, geology, once presented a timeline. If the history of the earth was laid out from Bangor, Maine to Peoria, Illinois, human occupation would fill the road from my home to the big road, about a mile. He didn't use those metaphors, but like that.

It's humbling.

John Bell
06-12-2006, 07:51 AM
You don't get it Joe, warming isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not devastating half measures or even more devastating full measures will impact the trend in any meaningful way. Even supporters of the Kyoto accords agree they won't do it. So what then? That's the debate, and it's a lot thornier than you seem willing to accept.

George Jung
06-12-2006, 08:27 AM
Lance yer the type of guy who would question Chuck Yeager about how to fly a plane, arent you ?

What credentials do you bring to the table ?

Again unless you missed it before

My buddies Tim's credentials.


Hehe - whatever made you think 'yer Buddy' would get a pass here? Whatsamatter - don't you want any of us to play with yer friend?
This actually seems to present an opportunity for interaction with 'an expert'; I'm betting he can handle the questions.

tmh1
06-12-2006, 11:53 AM
>You don't get it Joe, warming isn't the issue. The issue is whether or >not devastating half measures or even more devastating full measures >will impact the trend in any meaningful way. Even supporters of the >Kyoto accords agree they won't do it. So what then? That's the >debate, and it's a lot thornier than you seem willing to accept.

Yes, very thorny, indeed. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases to the atmosphere today, there's already about 0.5 degree C warming in the "pipeline." This is simply because the ocean has huge thermal intertia, and takes decades to equilibrate with the atmosphere.
Of course, Kyoto offers nothing near a cessation of emissions.

A total alteration of industrial infrastructure away from fossil fuels and toward a combination of nuclear, renewables, and better conservation will take decades. Unfortunately, most governments are not good at dealing with threats that play themselves out over 4 or 5 administrations.

However, there is a compelling argument for even partial efforts, such as Kyoto: we can buy ourselves some time, maybe a few decades, before real catostrophes hit (e.g., major ice-sheet collapse). Maybe new energy technologies could be developed. At least it would provide time for adaptation, such as moving back from coastlines and relocating populations (possible in the US and some Pacific islands, but maybe not in Bangladesh).

Also (my pet topic), it turns out that the ocean's uptake of CO2 depends, among other things, on the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2. We'd get double benefit from slowing the emission rate, because the ocean would also absorb more.

Moving away from fossil fuels will no doubt be wrenching economically, but I dont believe it will be uniformly bad economically. I'll bet plenty of new niche industries we will grow up around alternative energy.

Tim

tmh1
06-12-2006, 12:31 PM
>Welcome Tim, glad to have your input. Humm so with more water at >the surface then isn't it likely there will be more of an intake of co2, >thus reducing the effects?

Thanks. Unfortunately, dont think I'll get to read or post very often.

To respond to your question: Although rising sea level is harmful to coastal communities, the actual fractional increase in global sea-surface area is tiny. The effect on ocean CO2 uptake is negligible.

One thing that does affect ocean uptake is sea-surface temperature. Higher temperature alters rates of aqueous carbon-chemistry in such a way as to hamper additional CO2 uptake. This is a positive feedback, leading to more atmospheric CO2 and more warming.

Another positive feedback has to do with ocean currents. In the present-day ocean the North Atlantic (particularly, the Labrador and Irminger Seas) are regions of deep convective plumes, where surface water is carried to the deep ocean rapidly. These plumes carry carbon and other gases of atmospheric origin to the deep ocean, where it's sequestered from atmospheric contact for centuries. (The deep ocean moves very slowly.) But the convection depends on surface waters being less bouyant that deeper waters, generally because they're cold and salty.

As Greenland melts fresh water into the North Atlantic, and the ocean warms, surface waters get more bouyant, inhibiting the convection. Less carbon gets sucked down, and more carbon can re-enter the atmosphere quickly.

A negative feedback has to do with ocean biota. In principle, carbon can fertilize phytoplankton. More phytoplankton means more carbon uptake via photosynthesis, and a slower CO2 increase in the atmosphere. However, we presently think that phytoplankton photosynthesis is limited by nutrient availability, not carbon. Mostly, the phytocplankton cant make use of the extra carbon, because there's not enough nitrates, phosphates, and iron about. This has led to the interesting idea of dumping iron filings into the ocean to enhance photosynthesis and take up more CO2. This has actually been tested on small scales off Indonesia. Unfortunately, so far, the results dont look very promising. (And, there's always the "law" of unintended consequences.)

Anyway, sorry to lecture. But this is a boat forum, so maybe people are interested in the ocean!

Tim

huisjen
06-12-2006, 12:35 PM
This is the bilge. We're interested in everything.

Dan

John Bell
06-12-2006, 01:00 PM
(And, there's always the "law" of unintended consequences.)


And that's one of my problems with the measures that have been proposed for mitigating GW. The social engineering that may result fighting this "problem" strikes me as more immediately dangerous to us than the climate. (I frankly could care less about 250 or 500 years in the future.) In a previous post you talk about relocating coastal populations. How, then? How about Stalin's forced collectivization of Ukrainian agriculture as a model? That's what I mean about more dangerous....

My opinion of Kyoto is that it is mainly a money grab by third world contries who stand to profit from emissions trading. The dictators and despots of those countries profit while we hamstring our own prosperity.As others on this forum are fond of saying: Follow the money.

Dan McCosh
06-12-2006, 01:03 PM
'll bet plenty of new niche industries we will grow up around alternative energy.
Tim[/QUOTE]


This is an interesting notion. Elimination of fossil fuels would pretty much end all present-day transportation, a good deal of food production, most home and commericial heating, and the manufacturing of basic materials such as steel, aluminum and concrete. I think this would be uniformly bad economically. This is, of course, even before you also end the agricultural sources of methane.

tmh1
06-12-2006, 01:35 PM
>And that's one of my problems with the measures that have been >proposed for mitigating GW. The social engineering that may result >fighting this "problem" strikes me as more immediately dangerous to us >than the climate. (I frankly could care less about 250 or 500 years in >the future.) In a previous post you talk about relocating coastal >populations. How, then? How about Stalin's forced collectivization of >Ukrainian agriculture as a model? That's what I mean about more >dangerous....

I, like you, am pessimistic that we can do much about climate change. By the way, we're talking 20-50 years for changes noticeable to everyone, and disruptive to many, not 250-500. Even so, that's pretty far out, given everyday crises.

But, you've set up a straw man. I would never recommend communist-era relocations of coastal communities. There are more palatable options: perhaps tax incentives, mortgage-law changes. This type of "social engineering" often does have unintended consequences, but we seem willing to try them all the time.

But, you're right, follow the money. I guess (speculate) that in the US the question of coastal development will be driven by business, not government. One example: Already, re-insurers have jacked up rates in coastal regions tremendously, mostly in response to predicted changes in hurricane frequency and intensity. It wont be long before direct insurers pass this on, or bail out. No insurance, no mortage, no coastal condo. (I went to an "academic" tropical cyclone workshop in March, and there were plenty of re-insurance representatives there.)


Tim

tmh1
06-12-2006, 01:46 PM
>This is an interesting notion. Elimination of fossil fuels would pretty >much end all present-day transportation, a good deal of food >production, most home and commericial heating, and the >manufacturing of basic materials such as steel, aluminum and concrete. >I think this would be uniformly bad economically. This is, of course, >even before you also end the agricultural sources of methane.

Another straw man. I didn't say, and there's no way, we're going to eliminate fossil fuels for many generations. The question is, can we slow down the emissions by shifting the balance a bit. Better fuel efficiency doesnt "end all present-day transportion." More tax breaks for geothermal and solar dont "end all home and commercial heating." It'll certainly cost. But it might also buy us some time (decades) of catasrophe avoidance, and some time to get a better understanding of ice sheets. Think of it as an insurance policy.

Tim

Bruce Taylor
06-12-2006, 01:49 PM
Thanks for taking the time, Tim. It's good to hear from someone who knows something, for a change. ;)

BTW, what do you think of the various schemes people have proposed for capturing and sequestering atmospheric carbon?

Meerkat
06-12-2006, 01:49 PM
The dictators and despots of those countries profit while we hamstring our own prosperity.As others on this forum are fond of saying: Follow the money.Hard to imagine how we "hamstring our own prosperity" when we either are, or are quite willing to be, in bed with these very despots and dictators if they/"their" country has something we want.

Follow the money indeed! Sometimes the people most affected don't have any money, so the paybacks are in kind - like 9/11. It's true: paybacks are a bitch!

Meerkat
06-12-2006, 01:51 PM
Aside from emissions, what about the planet's total energy budget? Whether it's internal combustion of fossil fuels or hydrogen or the like, heat is still pumped into the biosphere.

John Bell
06-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Hard to imagine how we "hamstring our own prosperity" when we either are, or are quite willing to be, in bed with these very despots and dictators if they/"their" country has something we want.

Follow the money indeed! Sometimes the people most affected don't have any money, so the paybacks are in kind - like 9/11. It's true: paybacks are a bitch!

At least in that case we are exchanging something of value, namely money, for something of value like oil or coal or color TVs. Exchanging real money for an abstraction like an "emission" credit is just plain stupid. Even you are smart enough to understand that Meer. The reason all the economically poor-with-little-prospect-of-improvement countries signed on to Kyoto is because they saw the money-for-nothing light come on. Ka-ching!

The 9/11 reference is beneath contempt, BTW. You're using the same excuse you guys claim GWB uses for everything: "9-11! 9-11!" Watch out lest youl become what you hate.:rolleyes:

tmh1
06-12-2006, 02:38 PM
>BTW, what do you think of the various schemes people have proposed >for capturing and sequestering atmospheric carbon?

I'm only superficially familiar with most of them. I'm glad people are thinking about it. One involves pumping CO2 recovered from power plants to the deep ocean, where it's sequestered from the atmosphere for centuries. Another involves something similar into the ground.

A third involves fertilazing ocean biota, so they'll take up more carbon. I know this third as been tried in test cases, with mixed results. Additional carbon is taken up by flora, consumed by fauna, the fauna die, their detritus sinks, the organic carbon dissolvs back to inorganic form, the inorganic carbon is mixed back to the surface, where it can escape back to the atmospere. I think the hope had been that a sizable fraction of the detritus would sink to deeper levels (below the top region of rapid mixing) before dissolving. But at least in the limited experiments, ot seemed not to be the case.

I'm aware of more radical approaches (Klaus Lackner at Columbia) in which power plants utilize fossil fuels, but all the "emissions" are solid ... rock (!). I saw a talk on this, and could not follow the chemistry (not being a chemist). But it's very speculative, almost certainly hugely expensive. And you have to build small mountains with the output.

Expense is actually a big issue for most of the geo-engineered solutions. At what point is it easier and cheaper just to encourage conservation and proven energy technologies.

Tim

tmh1
06-12-2006, 02:44 PM
>Aside from emissions, what about the planet's total energy budget? >Whether it's internal combustion of fossil fuels or hydrogen or the like, >heat is still pumped into the biosphere.

The energy budget is complicated, and it's often hard to define the separate energy "reservoirs." But, true, there's no such thing as a perfect heat engine. Some energy is always lost to the surrounding environment as heat. However, greenhouse gases have the additional detrimental property that they act to hold heat longer in the atmosphere before it escapes to space.

Tim

Meerkat
06-12-2006, 04:29 PM
You're using the same excuse you guys claim GWB uses for everything: "9-11! 9-11!" Watch out lest youl become what you hate.:rolleyes: Oh yeah, and if you vary from the neocon party line, it must be hate! :rolleyes:

Paul G.
06-12-2006, 04:39 PM
Considering the molecular weight of co2 is 44 or nearly double that of air, how exactly does co2 float up 20 miles and insulate us?

Meerkat
06-12-2006, 04:47 PM
Political hot air! ;)

Llance
06-12-2006, 04:57 PM
:rolleyes: Lance yer the type of guy who would question Chuck Yeager about how to fly a plane, arent you ?

What credentials do you bring to the table ?

Again unless you missed it before

My buddies Tim's credentials.



Indeed i'd love to have the oppourtunity to question General Yeager on the charactoristics of various aircraft and the effects that small changes in their flight surfaces or structural changes would have. Just as i would like to question some real experts on what effects changes in the wetted surfaces of a vessels underwater body would have.

What credentials do i bring to the table?? Well lets see; i've a fairly compresentive understanding of the english language (though i couldn't spell milk if i were swiming in it) and i am able to read such at a higher level of understanding than my simple public school education would indicate.

I thank you Joe for restating Tim's credentials. Though i didn't miss them before nor did i question them it's certenly is good to have them restated.

As Tim's first statement ( i did read it all) did not address the increased surface area of the ocean and what effect this will have in his model, i was only questioning what effect this would have on CO2 absorbtion. Perhaps, with your greater knowledge of Tim's credentials, you can tell us.

lance

PeterSibley
06-12-2006, 05:01 PM
Thanks Tim, a good contribution.

You're cetainly right about the iminent social engineering by the insurance industry.They are in the business to make profits and they will either not be reinsuring high risk areas or making the premiums so high as to be a huge impediment to living there.It will be the market that makes these decisions ,not a modern Stalin.

The base line consideration is,are these things worth undertaking They are hugely expensive ...but then so are many enterprizes we undertake ,sometimes with far less proof than is being required in this case .Not to be rude but WMDs and the invasion of Iraq have to be mentioned .There appear to be huge disparities in the proofs required to undertake such enormously expensive undertakings.

ishmael
06-12-2006, 05:36 PM
I'll just ask again, what will it take to make humans want less? As has been pointed out, the carbon economy isn't going to change fast. The way it's geared, assuming CO2 is the enemy, we are destined to make China and India into middle America. Postively explosive global warming.

I hate to say it, but we need a good virus.

John Bell
06-12-2006, 06:37 PM
I hate to say it, but we need a good virus.

Sad. Sick. Disgusting. May those who hope for disaster find it befalls only them. Why the heck are so many so fatalistic? :(

George Jung
06-12-2006, 09:44 PM
Perhaps you're taking Ish a bit too literally, Mr. Bell. I don't believe he was wishing a virus on any particular group of people, or hoping for a disaster in literal terms, at all. As I read him, he's simply bemoaning (Ish does that, ya know) the conundrum we're about to enter with an exploding population, skyrocketing energy demands, and global warming, with no easy answers in sight. Allegorical, maybe. Literal, no.

Phil Heffernan
06-12-2006, 11:34 PM
Damn good thread here, I am impressed with the input of TMH and others here, very sane...

"I didn't say, and there's no way, we're going to eliminate fossil fuels for many generations. The question is, can we slow down the emissions by shifting the balance a bit. Better fuel efficiency doesnt "end all present-day transportion." More tax breaks for geothermal and solar dont "end all home and commercial heating." It'll certainly cost. But it might also buy us some time (decades) of catasrophe avoidance, and some time to get a better understanding of ice sheets. Think of it as an insurance policy. "

The very act of seeking new solutions, taking conserving roads, perhaps even doing without for a bit, will create a consciousness of global preservation. Will it work?

Certainly not, if we don't try it.

PH

PeterSibley
06-13-2006, 02:13 AM
Has anyone read the book, "Natural Capitalism", Amory Lovins.

http://www.natcap.org/ (http://www.natcap.org/)
http://www.rmi.org/ (http://www.natcap.org/)


It deals with many of these problems in a way that should be of interest to those who see energy reductions as nigh on impossible .They are largely engineering solutions and market friendly .

Reductions are possible ,even profitable...even very large ones,which bearing the evidence in mind,is definitely a good thing .

tmh1
06-13-2006, 06:14 AM
>Considering the molecular weight of co2 is 44 or nearly double that of >air, how exactly does co2 float up 20 miles and insulate us?

If you'e interested in learning basics of atmospheric science and meteorology, there are several good Inro text books ("Atmospheric Science," Wallace and Hobbs). In any of them you will find the answer to your question, as part of the basic composition and vertical structure of the atmosphere.

In a nutshell: turbulent mixing. It's the same reason the O2 and N2 (he basic constituents of air) dont separate, despite having difference molecular weights. They are so light, and the atmosphere so dynamically active, that the time it would take them to drift by gravity against molecular collisions is much, much longer than the time it takes atmospheric motions (winds) to mix them.

You have to go to about 100km altitude for the atmosphere to become thin enough for consituents to separate molecularly.

By the way, the major greenhouse influence of CO2 is not 20 miles (which is well into the stratosphere), but lower down in the upper half troposphere, say 3 to 9 miles (5 to 15km).

Tim

Joe (SoCal)
06-13-2006, 06:18 AM
As Tim's first statement ( i did read it all) did not address the increased surface area of the ocean and what effect this will have in his model, i was only questioning what effect this would have on CO2 absorbtion. Perhaps, with your greater knowledge of Tim's credentials, you can tell us.

lance

Happy now ;)

Bruce Taylor
06-13-2006, 07:09 AM
Again, Tim...thanks for doing this.

Are many of your colleagues still skeptical about human forcing of climate change? We sometimes hear resentful mutterings about a "climate change orthodoxy" that suppresses scientific dissent and channels funds toward certain "approved" areas of research.

tmh1
06-13-2006, 07:35 AM
>Are many of your colleagues still skeptical about human forcing of >climate change? We sometimes hear resentful mutterings about a >"climate change orthodoxy" that suppresses scientific dissent and >channels funds toward certain "approved" areas of reasearch.

All of my direct colleagues agree that there is a dominant (majority) role of human forcing in the global-mean temperature increase we've had to date.

The few sceptics on this point are completely marginalized, though they seem to be disproportionately loud.

The sceptical arguments against the temperature trends that used to have some merit---satellite temperature trends disagreeing with surface measurements, city heat-island effects contaminating global averages, a few others---have now all now been addressed and countered (e.g., errors were found in the satellite analysis---they now agree with the increasing surface trends).

Everyone I know agrees that arguments based on climate models and, independently, on observational evidence from Earth's past climate are very compelling: human-emitted greenhouse gases are casuing most of the present warming. If someone come's along with a different explanation he now has the very heavy burdens of, not only providing evidence for his alternate theory, but also demonstrating why compelling, multiple evidance for greenhouse-gases is somehow wrong.

There is, of course, more and real disagreement on the magnitude and timing of events in the future. "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future." The range of predicted increases in global-mean temperature is about 2 to 5 degrees C by mid century. Most of the uncertainty is due to uncertainty in what the emissions will be, not uncertainty in climate response to the emissions.

Tim

ishmael
06-13-2006, 08:20 AM
Tim,

It is good to hear a climatologist chiming in.

Don't a lot of Russian scientists disagree with the CO2 model?

In anycase, there are too many of us wanting too much. Even if we get around the CO2 issue somehow, just from an aesthetic point of view.

Driving the east coast a few years back it was dismaying the number of developments full of 3 and 4,000 sq. ft. McMansions going up. I can understand the desire for a home, but what a bunch of big, ugly idiot architecture being slung across open land! All of it taking thousands of pounds of CO2 to maintain. It seemed a form of madness. Unsatisfied, ignorant of motivation, okay let's build new monstrosities by the thousands!

As the Chinese and Indians get more and more hep to this sort of consumption, look out!

Joe (SoCal)
06-13-2006, 08:30 AM
Tim,
Don't a lot of Russian scientists disagree with the CO2 model?


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If Shiva handed this guy a million dollars, told him "Sign the deal!" he wouldn't sign. And the God Vishnu too, into the bargain.

Memorable Quotes from
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

ishmael
06-13-2006, 08:34 AM
Stop your ears, Joe. Don't listen to anything that contradicts your view of the world. Keep drinking that Koolaid.

Joe (SoCal)
06-13-2006, 08:45 AM
Stop your ears, Joe. Don't listen to anything that contradicts your view of the world. Keep drinking that Koolaid.

Thats the thing, you fool, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTRADICTION. I brought a freaking NASA climatologist to the table to tell you so and you are searching feverishly to find someone, anyone maybe in Russia possibly, hopefully, somewhere, someone that has a difference of opinion just so you can beg for more debate.

THERE IS NO OTHER DEBATE !!!!! What more do you need ??? I got to hear about your freaking BA in environmental yadda yadda yadda and you think that gives you the justification to poor Kool-aid down my gullet ?

I'm telling you if God himself with Jesus beside him with Budda in tow were to sit you some of you down and say this is how it is, you all would still question the validity. Thats what makes these damn threads go on forever. No matter how precise or expertly presented there is always some fool with no background, who has to go and say But What If

Bruce Taylor
06-13-2006, 08:48 AM
I'm enjoying this. :)

Tim, no doubt you've heard this one before:

"Why should we believe these climatologists? Aren't these the same people who used to warn that we were on the brink of a new ice age?"

As it happens, I don't remember any consensus about an impending ice age, but maybe I wasn't paying attention. Assuming that reputable climatologists did foretell a catastrophic cooling trend, what makes this new apocalypse any different?

ishmael
06-13-2006, 08:58 AM
If there is no debate -- and even your hired gun will admit there is as to details of cause, effect, extent -- why are you so afraid?

A reasoned life doesn't latch onto what makes it feel good. It asks questions, looks at all sides, is curious even when the questions are difficult and contrary.

I'm on record above saying the correlation between CO2 output and warming seems sound. But that doesn't mean I know, and I like to hear those who disagree, try to reason it out.

What are we going to do about it, assuming it's true? More mindless economic development? The entire house of cards is founded on continued growth.

How much oil and coal do you burn in a year to support your lifestyle? How much waste do you support with your work? How, given our current technologies, is this human experiment sustainable?

The willingness to buy ideas, without being willing to reason about opposing ideas, is one of our great failings as humans.

Joe (SoCal)
06-13-2006, 09:16 AM
Whateva :rolleyes:

Go screw your cat, I give up on you.

ishmael
06-13-2006, 09:19 AM
Ah yes, the voice of ad hominem attack and ignorant dismissal over reason.

I fear we are going to get exactly what we deserve.

Lone Star
06-13-2006, 09:21 AM
An interesting excerpt from the book “Chaos – Making a New Science” by James Gleick…


“Computer modeling had indeed succeeded in changing the weather business from an art to a science. The European Centre’s assessments suggested that the world saved billions of dollars each year from predictions that were statistically better than nothing. But beyond two or three days the world’s best forecasts were speculative, and beyond six or seven they were worthless.

The Butterfly Effect was the reason. For small pieces of weather – and to a global forecaster, small can mean thunderstorms and blizzards – any prediction deteriorates rapidly. Errors and uncertainties multiply, cascading upward through a chain of turbulent features, from dust devils and squalls up to continent-size eddies that only satellites can see.

The modern weather models work with a grid of points on the order of sixty miles apart, and even so, some of the starting data has to be guessed, since ground stations and satellites cannot see everywhere. But suppose the earth could be covered with sensors spaced one foot apart, rising at one-foot intervals all the way to the top of the atmosphere. Suppose every sensor gives perfectly accurate readings of temperature, pressure, humidity, and any other quantity, a meteorologist would want. Precisely at noon an infinitely powerful computer takes all the data and calculates what will happen at each point at 12:01, then 12:02, the 12:03…

The computer will still be unable to predict whether Princeton, New Jersey, will have sun or rain on a day one month away. At noon the spaces between the sensors will hide fluctuations that the computer will not know about, tiny deviations from the average. By 12:01, those fluctuations will already have created small errors one foot away. Soon the errors will have multiplied to the ten-foot scale, and so on up to the size of the globe.

Even for the experienced meteorologists, all this runs against intuition. One of Lorenz’s oldest friends was Robert White, a fellow meteorologist at M.I.T. who later became head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lorenz told him about the Butterfly Effect and what he felt it meant for long-range prediction. White gave Von Neumann’s answer. “Prediction, nothing,” he said. “This is weather control.” His thought was that small modifications, well within human capability, could cause desired large scale changes.

Lorenz saw it differently. Yes, you could change the weather. You could make it do something different from what it would otherwise have done. But if you did, then you would never know what it would otherwise have done. It would be like giving an extra shuffle to an already well-shuffled pack of cards. You know it will change your luck, but you don’t know whether for better or worse.”

George Jung
06-13-2006, 01:05 PM
Joe, why the fit? Tim certainly appears (calm) willing to discuss these issues. Length of thread may simply reflect the degree of interest in the topic.
Looking at 'warming', the natural temperature fluctuations noted from ice core sampling, historic variations, etc., the argument over degree of human impact isn't really unreasonable. The red flag, from what I've seen, is the rate of change noted recently; that doesn't bode well. And if you think of the climate in terms of a chemical or mathematical equation (which seems appropriate), that 'little impact' some note from human use of fossilfuels may actually represent the 'tipping point' in that fine balance we've had for millenia. That would be my suspicion; how to quantify such elements of an equation is a different story.
That all said, of course we should find a way to economize on the use of earths resources. I'd love to see a push, not only nationally, but internationally. Because if the only efforts are made by the 'First World' countries, and fossil fuel use is the culprit, we're doomed to failure, based on projected needs for China et al in the very near future. I realize we can only do what WE can do, but looking at the big picture, there's a nasty jump coming in that equation that we're not going to be able to impact.

ishmael
06-13-2006, 01:21 PM
I think Joe is a typical American. Fairly bright, in love with his toys, and his leaky big old house, and his whole lifestyle.

It's easy to talk a good game, to wring your hands and say something ought to be done about this. We better have politicians act! All the while going home to a middle-class American style that simply isn't sustainable if spread over the world. The boundaries are starting to creak a little.

Ironic, odd. It's an interesting time.

Meerkat
06-13-2006, 01:26 PM
Stupid, shallow, banal, it's another boring post from someone who makes a virtue of intellectual and emotional poverty.

Leon m
06-13-2006, 02:08 PM
Thats the thing, you fool, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTRADICTION. I brought a freaking NASA climatologist to the table to tell you so and you are searching feverishly to find someone, anyone maybe in Russia possibly, hopefully, somewhere, someone that has a difference of opinion just so you can beg for more debate.

THERE IS NO OTHER DEBATE !!!!! What more do you need ??? I got to hear about your freaking BA in environmental yadda yadda yadda and you think that gives you the justification to poor Kool-aid down my gullet ?

I'm telling you if God himself with Jesus beside him with Budda in tow were to sit you some of you down and say this is how it is, you all would still question the validity. Thats what makes these damn threads go on forever. No matter how precise or expertly presented there is always some fool with no background, who has to go and say But What If


Fun...aint it Joe...so they'll find out the hardway.For some it's more imoprtant to be right than correct.

ishmael
06-13-2006, 02:32 PM
Nice mirror gazing, once again, David. If anyone posts shallow, banal, gotchas, with no interest in any form of argument, it's you.

It's the same ol' story. I'd like to argue this, just so I can understand better what scientists think is going on. But it evolves into idiot name calling, you and Joe being some of the worst offenders. That's not gratuitous, that's a fact.

Why? You pretend to want to know, but all you really want is to dominate, belittle out of your fragile psychologies of fear and impotence.

I'm done with this small corner.

Meerkat
06-13-2006, 02:44 PM
Blah BLAH BLAH

PeterSibley
06-13-2006, 04:27 PM
Ish, stop debating and waffling and actually read what Tim has taken the time to present. ...and I don't think he should be refered to as a "hired gun".He is here to educate and inform us in a field none of us know anything about ,yourself included.Don't turn it back on Joe ...just listen and try to learn.

ishmael
06-14-2006, 09:27 AM
My my, it's never so simple as some of us believe.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

High C
06-14-2006, 09:59 AM
My my, it's never so simple as some of us believe.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm


From the link above:
"...one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change."

Yet on this thread we have been treated to a well credentialed expert who claims that there is no dissent. Dozens, if not hundreds, of articles written by other well credentialed experts can be found which cast doubt on man's alleged role in GW. Yet, we have an expert among us who states flatly that this dissent does not exist.

Dissent does exist. We see it frequently. The issue is clearly not settled. So where does this leave us? What are we to think when we are told something which is so easily proven false?

Tim, you're obviously a hyper qualified scientist. Your writing is convincing, and your manner is gentlemanly, yet you have made a grand claim which is unsupportable.

Is it any wonder this is a hard sell?

huisjen
06-14-2006, 10:04 AM
Dissent exists when it's paid to exist. Follow the money.

Notice that the dissent says no human involvement in warming, while the majority says humans are culpable. The vast majority agrees that global warming is largely human induced. And the number of dissenters is shrinking as the oil companies shift their PR budgets around.

Dan

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
06-14-2006, 10:06 AM
No - it's not a hard sell - at very best it's a warning.

If they are right - and they might be - some people who choose to live on low lying land next to the sea will die - others will become uninsurable.

Life will go on - nobody and nothing has cause to care.

TomF
06-14-2006, 10:09 AM
I used to work for the government in Alberta. The government line was to resist Kyoto on a number of fronts - one of which was raising the profile of the comparatively small group of dissenting scientists.

As Dan said, follow the money. The dissenting scientists weren't profiled by Ontario, or Manitoba, or Quebec ... but by the province whose economy is booming from the exploitation of the tar sands.

High C
06-14-2006, 10:19 AM
Dan, Tom, and Newt, all three of you have just admitted that there is dissent. You state your suspicions of that dissent, but you admit that it exists. Some don't.

When you cry "follow the money", realize that that works both ways. Don't forget to "follow the power" while you're at it.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
06-14-2006, 11:01 AM
I neither know nor care about dissent - the scientists are entitled to be wrong, the more important question is;
If "global warming caused by human activity" were proven fact - how would that change your actions?

TomF
06-14-2006, 11:26 AM
When you cry "follow the money", realize that that works both ways. Don't forget to "follow the power" while you're at it.High C, sometimes both money and power have coalesced because frankly, that's where most of the activity is ... for legitimate reasons. There's a lot of funding for, oh, virology research connected to HIV/AIDS. That's because MOST (though not all) scientists believe that AIDS is caused by a virus, and further research is warranted to understand and better combat it. There's a lot of power in the granting agencies, that give money to this research program and not that one.

There was a huge lot of research money and power invested in exploring the links between tobacco smoking and lung cancer ... though the tobacco companies certainly found researchers who bucked the trend.

Which lot of money and power would you like us to investigate, regarding human-induced global warming?

High C
06-14-2006, 11:39 AM
...Which lot of money and power would you like us to investigate, regarding human-induced global warming?
Just don't pretent that there are not self serving power seekers on your side of this thing.

Are we to believe that Al Gore is a selfless, virtuous character? Or Bill Clinton, who on the eve of Tropical Strorm Alberto said words to the effect that "Republican policies will bring us more and stronger hurricanes"? Is this altruism, or is this raw power seeking? What did they do about impending disaster when they were running the show? Why did Kyoto get zero votes in Congress when they were the ones selling it?

What greater tool could there be to lay claim to power than a phenomenon which crosses all borders?

Don't be blind to the moneyed interests and power seekers on your side of this thing. There's plenty of slime to go around, and that, along with empty claims that the science on this is conclusively settled, makes me very sceptical.

Bruce Taylor
06-14-2006, 11:45 AM
Yet, we have an expert among us who states flatly that this dissent does not exist.

I think you're misrepresenting Tim's comments. He wrote:


All of my direct colleagues agree that there is a dominant (majority) role of human forcing in the global-mean temperature increase we've had to date.

I take the phrase "direct colleagues" to mean the people with whom he has direct professional contact. He goes on to confirm that "dissent" exists, but that skeptics on the subject of "human forcing" are "completely marginalized":


The few sceptics on this point are completely marginalized, though they seem to be disproportionately loud.

So, he certainly does not "state flatly" that dissent does not exist.

High C
06-14-2006, 12:05 PM
I think you're misrepresenting Tim's comments. He wrote:



I take the phrase "direct colleagues" to mean the people with whom he has direct professional contact. He goes on to confirm that "dissent" exists, but that skeptics on the subject of "human forcing" are "completely marginalized":



So, he certainly does not "state flatly" that dissent does not exist.

Maybe it's not stated flatly, I retract that, but he does state that ALL of his colleagues are of a like mind, and that those of a different mind are "marginalized and loud". That is a very clear statement that there is no dissent.

Regarding the "loud" comment, well, that one speaks for itself. The noise from the believer side of the issue is deafening, while the non-believer side is so muted that a number of members here don't even sem to realize it exists.

TomF
06-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Maybe Tim's just telling the truth, JT. Maybe none of his direct colleagues dissent on whether humans are the dominant factor in current global warming. And maybe the scientists who disagree are marginalized, are so outside the mainstream debates/disagreements that they really aren't part of the discussion.

That's essentially the position that Creationists (and to a slightly lesser extent, AI advocates) find themselves in regarding scientific discussions on evolution. They're frequently "loud" too, but that doesn't make their views more scientifically compelling.

High C
06-14-2006, 12:25 PM
...maybe the scientists who disagree are marginalized, are so outside the mainstream debates/disagreements that they really aren't part of the discussion....

Think about what you've just said, Tom. The dissenters, some of whom have credentials as lofty as anyone's, are not being allowed to take part in the discussion. That's the whole problem. They aren't loud, they're shouted down every time they dare to stick their necks out.

A number of seemingly well read and well educated people here on this forum don't even seem to realize they exist. Loud, indeed.

As long as the dissenters are shouted down, "marginalized", and accused of working for oil companies, those who promote the human indiced GW argument will continue to find it difficult to gain traction. Their behavior with regard to dissent is not that of confident scientists, it is the behavior of someone who is up to something sneaky.

George Roberts
06-14-2006, 12:39 PM
I am looking for venture capital for the production of Soylent Green.

I expect to be profitable in 10 years.

TomF
06-14-2006, 01:18 PM
Think about what you've just said, Tom. The dissenters, some of whom have credentials as lofty as anyone's, are not being allowed to take part in the discussion. That's the whole problem. They aren't loud, they're shouted down every time they dare to stick their necks out.

A number of seemingly well read and well educated people here on this forum don't even seem to realize they exist. Loud, indeed.

As long as the dissenters are shouted down, "marginalized", and accused of working for oil companies, those who promote the human indiced GW argument will continue to find it difficult to gain traction. Their behavior with regard to dissent is not that of confident scientists, it is the behavior of someone who is up to something sneaky.JT, who's disallowing them? Who's shouting them down? What I'm hearing from Tim is the same thing I heard from my father-in-law when he prepared his report for the Royal Society: the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the hypothesis of human-induced global warming. While dissenters exist, their theories and models have not had sufficient weight to convince scientists within the relative disciplines, outside of a small circle.

This is not "shouting down." It's simply allowing the weight of the relevant evidence to speak. If a paper which met the evidentiary criteria were written, I suspect it would quickly be published by Nature, or an equally prominent journal.

As to allegations that dissenters working for oil companies ... IIRC, that was the source of research funding for some of the researchers Alberta cited in their anti-Kyoto material.

High C
06-14-2006, 01:29 PM
Tom, these sceptical scientists have themselves claimed that they are often shouted down. Calling them "marginalized and loud" is a form of shouting down. It is routine for anyone daring to challenge or question the claims of the GW theorists to be shouted down, isulted, called childish names, etc. Do you think this behavior is limited to the WBF? It is not. Many proponents of human induced GW routinely behave in this fashion, even in some very public venues.

It adds to scepticism.

Meerkat
06-14-2006, 01:33 PM
How loud was Katrina? ;)

John Bell
06-14-2006, 01:39 PM
Here's an honest question: how much of the greenhouse CO2 is oil and how much is coal?

We've got a GREAT solution for burning coal, BTW.

John Bell
06-14-2006, 01:40 PM
How loud was Katrina? ;)

A little louder than Camille (1963). Want me to name some more storms? How about the 1909 Galveston storm? What's your point?

High C
06-14-2006, 01:42 PM
How loud was Katrina? ;)

Are you aware of NOAA's official stance on hurricane's and GW? Prepare yourself for a surprise, if you can even find it, given how "loud" the dissent is. :rolleyes:

Meerkat
06-14-2006, 01:48 PM
Yes, I'm aware of the "official stance" and also that "official stances" are whatever the administration orders them to be, science not withstanding.

High C
06-14-2006, 01:48 PM
Aw shucks, I don't want to torture the Meerkat, here's NOAA's stance on hurricane's and GW: http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

An excerpt: "NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming."

I realize that there may be dissent to this particular scientific view, but I accept that, and promise not to shout down any dissenters. ;)

Meerkat
06-14-2006, 01:51 PM
NOAA metions their official stance every chance they get. Is that under the theory if they say it enough, it must be true? SOP for the Bush administration.

High C
06-14-2006, 02:02 PM
NOAA metions their official stance every chance they get...

Tell us of a better credentialed source? NASA? Oopsie, they're under the administration, too. Interesting, two different Federal agencies getting conflicting marching orders from the President. Is that what you'd have us believe, or did you forget about NASA?

There is no dissent. There is no dissent. There is no dissent. Keep saying it. Make it bold. Underline it. Use colors and large fonts. There is no dissent.

Meerkat
06-14-2006, 02:05 PM
And here I thought you were educated, but obviously not: you can't read. Either that or you wear blinders.

High C
06-14-2006, 02:08 PM
And here I thought you were educated, but obviously not: you can't read. Either that or you wear blinders.

And so reacts the cornered prey, defeated, lacking answers, he lashes out like a child.

You lose when you do that, whether you're right or not.

TomF
06-14-2006, 02:21 PM
Tom, these sceptical scientists have themselves claimed that they are often shouted down. Calling them "marginalized and loud" is a form of shouting down. I'd imagine that the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have claimed the same. Doesn't make either the claim, or their perspectives, true. Though certainly, some scientists have loudly dismissed both Creationism and ID as unscientific.

Don't know about GW and hurricanes, though I've certainly heard that weather prediction in general is very tough - and that specific events can't be attributed to GW.

Bruce Taylor
06-14-2006, 02:35 PM
Anyone else remember Herbert Dingle, President of the British Astronomical Society, who claimed to have disproven Special Relativity? As I recall, he believed he'd found an inconsistency between the Galilean postulate of relativity and Einstein's "twin paradox."

Amazingly, he still has his supporters. There's even a website dedicated to the proposition that "Dingle was correct!" (There's something poignant about that exclamation point: "Won't somebody please listen?" :) )

http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/18/Ricker.htm

I'm ill equipped to agree or disagree with the findings in Ricker's (apparently self-published) paper, but I am not troubled by the fact that it hasn't made any headlines. I'm just not the best guy to tell physicists how they should fill their hours, or whose papers should pass peer review.

Bruce Taylor
06-14-2006, 02:44 PM
I'd imagine that the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have claimed the same.

Not to mention the Flat Earthers. :)

Some hypotheses are "marginal" because they don't stand up to scrutiny. If science were an egalitarian enterprise, like Barney the Dinosaur's classroom, where "everyone is special in his or her own way," I suppose there'd be no peer review process. Everyone would just take turns publishing.

ishmael
06-14-2006, 04:01 PM
Hey, this is a worrisome issue for all of us who care about humanity. I care about us, I think we've got a lot going for us. Lots of negatives too, but enough good stuff that I'd prefer we didn't suffer too much the consequences of our own foolishness.

All I'm calling for is an open, reasoned discussion of this issue. What is so difficult about that?

When Al Gore presents it as decided science, in a blatant run at the Whitehouse BTW, and we find out that his science isn't decided, far from it, it doesn't help matters. It makes the discussion harder to have, because how can you discuss matters with a charlatan?

Film is incredibly powerful. It can convince a person black is white. When he finds out black is actually green he gets mad, at himself for being so stupid, at the purveryors of the film for being so clever. None of which helps the very real discussion about this that should be happening.

PeterSibley
06-14-2006, 07:36 PM
That there is dissent is obvious, the nature and source of that dissent is not that obvious.

Who benefits from the dissent is is obvious and I'm not talking about a few $ paid to the writers.

This debate is what the dissenters want,it's all they need , to keep the ball in the air.At some time we have to have read all that our non professional skulls will assimilate and make a decision.I have .If you choose to keep discussing you are also making a decision, although you may not agree .

If this thing is real, (and I believe it is ) talking about it's possibilty is the very opposite to a solution and just exactly what our coal industry proposes.More discussion.:D Keep talking boys, you're making someone happy.

ishmael
06-15-2006, 02:58 AM
The problem, Peter, is that the discussion, the presentation of all sides, hasn't happened. We've been propagandized, as by this new film. In the last five years I've heard little more than a peep about how maybe this isn't happening, and tons of material saying it is. When you find out there are many reputable scientists who don't buy it, or think very differently, you begin to question if you've been given the straight dope.

Assuming it is happening -- which I've said I think in some form it is and we need to take some decisions, do things differently -- yet our journalists haven't presented the argument clearly and honestly, you end up with the current mess: factions fighting out of knee-jerk politics, and the public not aware or determined to act. Not good!

I hereby call for a series of internationally broadcast debates, discussions, about this. Let's lay the cards out, let the people know and decide. It might not be a ratings leader, but our corporate media owes us a full argument about this. I'll bet a suprising number would tune in.

What you are saying, in essence, is that you don't trust the people to decide. You seem a liberal, in a classical sense, yet you betray a distrust of the hoi poloi that is monarchical.

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 04:28 AM
The problem, Peter, is that the discussion, the presentation of all sides, hasn't happened. We've been propagandized, as by this new film. In the last five years I've heard little more than a peep about how maybe this isn't happening, and tons of material saying it is. When you find out there are many reputable scientists who don't buy it, or think very differently, you begin to question if you've been given the straight dope.

What more evidence do you require? I have tried to provide the very best data and argument that there is no dissenting scientific voice regarding this scientific fact. So at what point do you give up, and agree. Do we just keep holding out for the possibility that some scientist somewhere on the earth may object and because of that objection all other accepted scientific theories are rejected?

You keep talking about a dissenting scientific community but you have not proven your case that one even exists. Should the meer IDEA that one may exist be cause to continue the debate? Is the speculation that there will ALWAYS be an opposing side on ANY topic is that enough to cast a shadow on the current scientific evidence?

I could make an argument on ANY subject no matter how foolish and then speculate that a whole community would follow me blindly. Kinda like Jim Jones and my original Kool-Aid comment.

The fact remains: In every corner of the world scientists have come to the conclusion over the existence of Global Warming. Under peer review and the scientific process, through reputable scientific journals they have prooven that it exists. The WEIGHT of the data alone is OVERWHELMING. Yet you want to question question question until there is no more polar ice cap, until the seas rise, until the oil companies have made the 4th quarter profit escalations.

Why? Why? Why?
Close your eyes to the truth?



Assuming it is happening -- which I've said I think in some form it is and we need to take some decisions, do things differently -- yet our journalists haven't presented the argument clearly and honestly, you end up with the current mess: factions fighting out of knee-jerk politics, and the public not aware or determined to act. Not good!

I hereby call for a series of internationally broadcast debates, discussions, about this. Let's lay the cards out, let the people know and decide. It might not be a ratings leader, but our corporate media owes us a full argument about this. I'll bet a surpassing number would tune in.

What you are saying, in essence, is that you don't trust the people to decide. You seem a liberal, in a classical sense, yet you betray a distrust of the hoi poloi that is monarchical.

If this is any example of the debate your proposing we will be through the second and third earth before the debate is resolved.

I can see the debate after a thousand years and we have done nothing and this planet is no longer useful. Humans take to rocket ships and move to a NEW Earth. They proceed to rape the land and destroy the environment in the same way as they are doing now. Some scientist will speak up and say the data indicates that we are destroying NEW Earth. Then someone like Ish will point to some obscure dissenting viewpoint and call for more debate on the issue. The scientist will point out the obvious fact that humans are no longer living on the ORIGINAL Earth due to the exact same abuse. Ish will call for public debates and more hand wringing while the scientist look to the stars for Earth III. Leaving green and blue marble dumps in our wake.

http://healthandenergy.com/images/uncle%20sam%20and%20gwx9.gif

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 04:38 AM
Yea I guess since a NASA Climatologist was not sufficient for you to grasp the facts maybe I should just post cartoons for you.

http://healthandenergy.com/images/global6.gif

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 04:39 AM
http://healthandenergy.com/images/science_of_GWB.gif

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 04:39 AM
http://healthandenergy.com/images/pre-emption%20by%20GWB.gif

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 04:40 AM
http://healthandenergy.com/images/Scientists,%20frogs,%20and%20global%20warming.gif

ishmael
06-15-2006, 04:47 AM
"What more evidence do you require?"

Simple, Joe. ALL OF IT!

I don't like being preached to, and that's the form of modern global warming propaganda. Tim, your friend, who seems a very reasonable fellow, is only presenting one side of it. I want to hear it ALL. Why is that an ureasonable request? Only presenting one side makes people think something is fishy. Tim is probably right, at least in parts, but don't browbeat me with one-sided science that is often BS!

The fact that people ARE being unreasonable about it smacks of ideology, not science or good policy.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
06-15-2006, 04:51 AM
Fishmeal, your task should you choose to accept it is to find such evidence and return with it.

Feel free to use google or any other tool.

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 04:59 AM
"What more evidence do you require?"

Simple, Joe. ALL of it!

I don't like being preached to, and that's the form of modern global warming propaganda. Tim, your friend, who seems a very reasonable fellow, is only presenting one side of it. I want to hear it all. Why is that an ureasonable request? He's probably right, but don't browbeat me with one-sided science that is often BS!

The fact that people ARE being unreasonable about it smacks of ideology, not science or good policy.

So you want to hear from every undocumented kook in order to form an opinion. Tim and professional scientists presented the most factual side to it.

How many sides would you want to hear regarding the earth is round?
Do you see the roundness of earth with your naked eye? Hey it could be flat. Lets review ALL of it before we sail off the edge.

it smacks of idiocy, not science or good policy.

This reminds me of a recent commercial I saw.

A group of business men and woman were walking in the woods. One businessman falls into quicksand. The leader of the group starts organizing a comity. He sets forth strategy and procedure. Meanwhile the guy in the quicksand in sinking. The manager type continues to lay out a decisive plan of action and then pass it before the comity for review. The guy in the quick sand now has one hand above the sand the rest of him is below. Eventually one person grabs a rope and pulls him out. The manager congratulates all of them on a job well executed :rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 05:04 AM
Ohhh look cartoons

I guess since a NASA Climatologist was not sufficient for you to grasp the facts maybe I should just post cartoons for you.

http://healthandenergy.com/images/science_of_GWB.gif

This one is perfect for Ish.

http://healthandenergy.com/images/uncle%20sam%20and%20gwx9.gif

ishmael
06-15-2006, 05:07 AM
P.I,

There is much contrary out there. Read the link I posted. Not a few, not a few hired guns, hundreds of credible scientists question how this world is unfolding. The climate and our impact.

Gawd, we are so emotional about this! It's understandable, our children's future is at issue. Very few like to think about this in rational terms. It's much easier to be emotional, look on humans as bad, and buy the propaganda.

What would be so wrong about having a serious discussion? It wouldn't fit a predetermined agenda? Well call me a liberal, but I don't like predetermined agendas.

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 05:13 AM
What would be so wrong about having a serious discussion? It wouldn't fit a predetermined agenda? Well call me a liberal, but I don't like predetermined agendas.


Gravity is a predetermined agenda
1+1=2 is a predetermined agenda

I give up we need more predetermined agenda cartoons.

http://healthandenergy.com/images/global4.gif

ishmael
06-15-2006, 05:21 AM
Typically Joe. Can't muster an argument, try to browbeat the opposition with cartoons.

It's truly frightening, because that's what leads to fascism. It's the split I've been decrying.

We are so lucky, have been, that this sort of diatribe has been confined to popular culture. But give us a serious economic downturn, some real hunger in the West, and this issue will dissapear. Even though it probably is real.

P.S. Yesterday was garbage day on the road. I didn't have a bin full, so didn't participate this week, but I'm always amazed walking or driving this road on garbage day. People make mountains of garbage in their fretful consumption. While I have a small bag every week and a half, my neighbors will have six, or eight, or ten big bags of junk and packaging they don't want anymore. EVERY WEEK!

All of that is a carbon debt. Assuming the carbon issue is real it comes down to people being consuming idiots. People don't want to look at that because the economy of the world is based on keeping people consuming, but no matter how you parse it, if you want this to stop you have to get people interested in other things.

Joe (SoCal)
06-15-2006, 05:35 AM
Typically Joe. Can't muster an argument, try to browbeat the opposition with cartoons.


Can't muster an argument??
Can't muster an argument???
Can't muster an argument???

Dude read page 1-3 I posted my entire argument. Then I brought a NASA Climatologist into the argument. I have done my share of heavy lifting in this thread.

What the hell have you done but continue your tripe about a public debate ad infinitum ?????

Bull****.
Foster OUT

Paul G.
06-15-2006, 05:35 AM
Vitriolic attempts to prove GW are sadly misguided. This thread even sunk to cat screwing depths. Fortunately Ishmaels cat was curled behind the heater in the living room, hidden from view.

Down here its bloody freezing, we had a very heavy snow dump down south and did I mention that our alpine glaciers are advancing, pretty interesting since they exit through temperate forrest. Guess they havent heard of the GW debate just yet...

If you want empirical scientific evidence, I am not your man. However I have observed that in the desire to want something to be true, scientists can produce the most mind boggling array of data, calcs, and theories. which can only really be analytically proved or disproved by their peers. So hauling out a "scientist" from Nasa who can tech-talk means doodly squat.

Science is so full of holes, mistakes and dead ends it is truly amazing that anyone can with any certainty claim that GW as a result of human activity is real.

Last I heard it was a theory, yet it is presented as fact. Which is it?

And Joe btw if you think that big money aint involved in the battle for your heart and mind read this http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html

Paul G.
06-15-2006, 05:39 AM
And that Joe , is an inconvenient truth

TomF
06-15-2006, 06:21 AM
Global warming, as High C said some time back, is occurring. Whatever anomalies are occurring in NZ (there are some elsewhere too), the global temperature, overall, is rising. That's empirical fact. The question is whether it's due to human intervention, or not.

Ish, Paul, I frankly don't think that some engaged here will EVER say "OK, that's enough data - we can make a decision." There are too many other interests at work to allow that determination within our lifetimes. But I'm quite willing to go with the dominant scientific view, as Tim had laid out earlier.

It is hard not to come to the conclusion, as I did about the Alberta government's view when I worked for them, that many of those highlighting the dissenting few are doing so for self-interested reasons.

Frankly, that's one of the reasons why I chose to leave work for the Alberta government. I was unwilling to work in an office where some of my colleagues were paid to promote what some of us called "junk science," simply because continued oil extraction was making Alberta richer than God. It's not the only reason I left Alberta, but a major one ... and involved about a 20% salary cut.

PeterSibley
06-15-2006, 06:29 AM
Paul , people are going to make money out of this either way...and loose it .Fairly irrelevant I'd say.

Cold down your way ? It does effect how you think, here in NSW we're 89% drought declared and worried.NZ will have to export water the way we're going .

Bruce Taylor
06-15-2006, 06:29 AM
Read the link I posted. Not a few, not a few hired guns, hundreds of credible scientists

Jack, that claim was made in an opinion piece for an online publication by a fellow called Tom Harris, an engineer, and the director of the Ottawa division of a "public affairs and public policy company" called the High Park Group. He cited a couple of scientists and asserted that there were hundreds more.

That may be true, for all I know, but the fact that someone named "Tom Harris" says it doesn't persuade me of anything.

Show me that you're well acquainted with the research -- the primary sources, not some journalistic scraps you found on the Drudge Report -- and are intellectually equipped to interpret the results and I will take your plea for "discussion" more seriously.

PeterSibley
06-15-2006, 06:33 AM
Gravity is a predetermined agenda
1+1=2 is a predetermined agenda

I give up we need more predetermined agenda cartoons.

http://healthandenergy.com/images/global4.gif

You have to admit they're damn good cartoons :D, very much to the point in thiis case as I said before Ish. Your administration is VERY good at quick decisive action when it chooses :D:D.Theres just a fishy wiff of hypocracy in the air .

Meerkat
06-15-2006, 11:52 AM
Typically Joe. Can't muster an argument, try to browbeat the opposition with cartoons.
Tsk, tsk, tsk: you're not "the opposition," you're the ego-blown puddin'head we all humor. You haven't enough brow to bother beating.