PDA

View Full Version : Global warming - human causes



TomF
02-01-2007, 03:33 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

Major international report to be released on Friday. The scientists are 90% or more sure that global warming is of human origins, rather than some kind of natural variation.

The language is stronger than the group's used before. While disagreements continue on some issues (e.g. how much effect on seas etc.), the human causation is now virtually certain.

FWIW.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-01-2007, 07:38 PM
Those fools!
United States Senator James Inhofe (R. OK) has stated catagorically that "global warming is the greatest hoax in the history of the world", or words to that effect.
Would he lie?

George Jung
02-01-2007, 10:41 PM
What numerous sources (NYTimes is one) have noted is how much the actual report was toned down, and the 'negotiating' taking place just before release.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? 'His lips are moving'....

BrianW
02-01-2007, 11:57 PM
What numerous sources (NYTimes is one) have noted is how much the actual report was toned down, and the 'negotiating' taking place just before release.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? 'His lips are moving'....

George,

There's nothing political Nobel Peace Prize about Global Al Gore Warming.

:)

George Roberts
02-02-2007, 12:37 AM
It is amazing how incompetent those scientists appear.

Again they make no claim as to what the effects of proposed actions will be.

(They even admit that they have no idea what their models should include.)

TomF
02-02-2007, 07:36 AM
Bump. Top billing on the CBC news this morning.

Out of sheer curiosity, how's it faring in the US media?

Popeye
02-02-2007, 08:05 AM
ya i heard it on the drive in this morning , it perked up my ears and i immediately thought of what great bilge fodder this would make

then i heard david suzuki ranting about bottled water and immediately thought of what great bilge fodder that would make

i'm going to get a decaf latte with choclate and cinnamon sprinkles and mull it over for awhile , you guys talk amongst yourselves

jack grebe
02-02-2007, 08:27 AM
Just another BS report to raise grant money.Sigh,,,,Global Warming......sure, but a jump to "Caused by Humans" and again, no published link between the two, just some scientist say so.....BULL SHYTE

TomF
02-02-2007, 08:31 AM
Just another BS report to raise grant money.Sigh,,,,Global Warming......sure, but a jump to "Caused by Humans" and again, no published link between the two, just some scientist say so.....BULL SHYTEThe world's 300 most eminent scientists in the environmental sciences, Jack. Whose days are spent studying this stuff, unlike you or me.

If you could get the world's top 300 experts on the financial markets to say they're 90% sure of this trend or that ... wouldn't you put your money on it?

jack grebe
02-02-2007, 08:43 AM
The world's 300 most eminent scientists in the environmental sciences, Jack. Whose days are spent studying this stuff, unlike you or me.

If you could get the world's top 300 experts on the financial markets to say they're 90% sure of this trend or that ... wouldn't you put your money on it?
300 experts that are riding this meal ticket called global warming.
I am not refuting their " finding" .....But want to see and understand the "Proof" of "caused by humans". I don't want to see some pictures of smoke stacks and some paid announcer blearting out the same old brainwashing techniques about being caused humans.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-02-2007, 08:54 AM
What the scientists think doesn't matter the proverbial "tuppeny damn" - the actions people take - might matter - and equally may be inappropriate or even deranged.

What is VERY VERY clear is that nobody cares.

Popeye
02-02-2007, 09:16 AM
medical doctors are scientists , and if you go to your gp and get a checkup , he or she may look you over a bit and check your bp and look at your skin tone and then based on a diagnosis might make a few practical suggestions , you are in good health , but why not drink more water and get some exercise , these measures are generally aimed at promoting your own personal health and well being

or he / she could be a total crackpot looking for a gov't funding , i dunno

TomF
02-02-2007, 09:23 AM
300 experts that are riding this meal ticket called global warming.
I am not refuting their " finding" .....But want to see and understand the "Proof" of "caused by humans". I don't want to see some pictures of smoke stacks and some paid announcer blearting out the same old brainwashing techniques about being caused humans.Go to www.ipcc.ch (http://www.ipcc.ch), and you can review the information they released today. The full report will be released, downloadable from their website for free, later this year.

I think PISN's correct - nobody really gives a rat's @ss. Or at least, not enough of one to make lifestyle changes. And the IPCC's view that no matter what we do, we've got climate changes which may not be mitigated for 1000 years doesn't prompt us to bear down on India and China, or wrap more insulation 'round the house.

Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow ...

High C
02-02-2007, 10:10 AM
...I think PISN's correct - nobody really gives a rat's @ss. ...

Why do you suppose that is?

Why do those in Congress who preach on and on about this still not support Kyoto or any other greenhouse gas reduction measures?

Why do the EU nations that did sign on to Kyoto now ignore its restrictions?

Why do the Hollywood celebs who announced their new "Global Cool" group last week still live in immense mansions and ride around in Limos?

Why does Al Gore still fly around in private jets?

TomF
02-02-2007, 10:19 AM
Why do you suppose that is? I suppose it is because as a species, we're not particularly good at self denial. Even when we know it's the right thing to do.

When a particular bit of reality will challenge things we enjoy or hold to be precious, we're quite willing to deny it as long as possible, and then indulge in hypocrisy if we ultimately do accept it.

We've also structured the society in such a way that you can't participate without consuming. Even if Al Gore really and truly wanted to traverse the country in an Amish horse-drawn cart rather than by airplane (and I can't believe he would want to, BTW), the existing infrastructure would make it terribly difficult.

I'm hoping, though, that reports like this one will help lay to rest the ideas that (1) global warming's not occurring, and (2) it's not our responsibility even if it is.

Keith Wilson
02-02-2007, 10:39 AM
The central problem is that even fairly enlightened self-interest doesn't help much here. The earth's atmosphere is the ultimate commons. Anything I do now - whether I drive a Hummer or a Prius or a biodiesel-powered motorcycle or walk, whether I have an enormous house or a small one or live in a cave and burn only dried goat dung to keep warm, whether I fly to China weekly or walk everywhere I go - any of it will only have a vanishingly small effect on the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Any climate effects that I personally can cause will have absolutely no measurable effect on my personal well-being.

I think the reason that conservatives get so bent out of shape about climate change caused by human activity is that there is no possible free-market solution. If the problem is real, the only possible solutions involve some degree of central control, and this is anathema to their belief system.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-02-2007, 10:48 AM
... get so bent out of shape about climate change caused by human activity is that there is no possible free-market solution. If the problem is real, the only possible solutions involve some degree of central control,....

Sadly not true - no system of control is needed - if limits there be, then they will be found in due course - which is the system in play at the moment.

How do you plan to recognise the limits?

Keith Wilson
02-02-2007, 10:53 AM
OK, sure. In the long run, things will take care of themselves one way or another. In the long run, we'll all be dead. If we screw up the climate too much, it will have a very bad effect on industrial civilization, and the problem will be self-correcting. Overpopulation always corrects itself. If human beings are too stupid, we'll be extinct sooner rather than later. However, corrections of that type are hard on people, and I'd prefer to make corrections earlier and less painfully.

Dan McCosh
02-02-2007, 10:56 AM
I would say that effective "solutions" would take a large amount of central control, and the history of mankind has never demonstrated that that control is remotely possible. It was interesting in Gore's movie that he quickly dismissed population growth as a problem that is quickly reacting to market capitalism--or something or other. He also dismisses the notion that a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel consumption would have an equally dramatic economic impact. I see these as larger issues than the scientific observations.

Ron Joslin
02-02-2007, 11:12 AM
Don might know this:
If I where to fart in a greenhouse - - - would that be a greenhouse gas ?

TimH
02-02-2007, 11:13 AM
Seattle Smog.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20070202/450seattle_smog.jpg

TimH
02-02-2007, 11:15 AM
OK, sure. In the long run, things will take care of themselves one way or another. In the long run, we'll all be dead. If we screw up the climate too much, it will have a very bad effect on industrial civilization, and the problem will be self-correcting. Overpopulation always corrects itself. If human beings are too stupid, we'll be extinct sooner rather than later. However, corrections of that type are hard on people, and I'd prefer to make corrections earlier and less painfully.

The smartest thing I have read all day ;)

John Bell
02-02-2007, 11:18 AM
What's the cost/risk of doing nothing?

What's the cost/benefit/risk of taking half measures (e.g. Kyoto)?

What's the cost/benefit/risk of taking full measures (whatever the hell that would be...)?


Everything I've seen says half measures have no effect on climate, at great cost. Net benefit is worse than zero.

I've similarly seen statements that said if we immediately eliminated combustion of fossilized carbon, there would be not net effect on climate for many centuries, and that at unimaginable cost. The cure might well kill more than it saved.

"Doing something" only because it makes us feel better is foolish. particularly if there is not only no benefit, but also a significant penalty.

Beware the law of unintended consequences.

John Bell
02-02-2007, 11:32 AM
I think the reason that conservatives get so bent out of shape about climate change caused by human activity is that there is no possible free-market solution. If the problem is real, the only possible solutions involve some degree of central control, and this is anathema to their belief system.

Not picking on you Keith, but I find an amazing disconnect between those who decry the loss of civil liberties we're seeing in the name of domestic security from terrorism and those same people who would gladly sacrifice their individual liberty to tilt at the windmill of global warming.

I'm against both, FWIW.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-02-2007, 11:38 AM
So, there we have it.

The USA - largest consumers of Fosil Fuels on the planet - Will Do Nothing

E.U. per capita half the USA - will soon stop pretending to do anything - cos its pointless.

Africa - too busy dying from Aids to do anything

China - Installing gigawatts per week in coal fired capacity.

Australia - small population - cooking noisily.

Wales - small population, mild climate and lots of coal.

Keith Wilson
02-02-2007, 11:39 AM
John, I have a question for you: If it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels was causing global warming which would have really bad effects on modern civilization - flooding Manhattan, or turning Kansas and Missouri into a desert, let's say, just as a hypothetical - what solution would you advocate?

The problem as I see it is that environmental degradation in general, the problem of the commons, cannot be solved by rational self-interest, i.e. the free market. I wish it were otherwise. Some degree of central control, some degree of legal coercion is needed. It can be done well or badly, intelligently or stupidly, in a way that preserves freedom as much as possible or a way that does not, but I don't know of any other effective method. Do you?

John Bell
02-02-2007, 12:32 PM
John, I have a question for you: If it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels was causing global warming which would have really bad effects on modern civilization - flooding Manhattan, or turning Kansas and Missouri into a desert, let's say, just as a hypothetical - what solution would you advocate?

Your question presupposes that any solution would a) be certain of preventing those things from happening, and b) not create significantly more political, social, and economic problems than it solved.

Expecting things to remain unchanged is unwise, actively working to prevent change is a fools errand. The earth's climate has changed dramatically throughout human history. For some places, the environment became less habitable and in others more so. Humans, being the most adaptable animals on earth responded accordingly: with migrations, adaptive technology, and yes, sometimes things got worse before they got better. But the point is that we've always adapted and I don't expect the future to be any different in that regard. I have greater faith that our demonstrated ability to adapt exceeds our ability to quickly effect a major change on the climate. The cost in both human and ecomomic terms is lower for adaptation than a radical re-ordering of human life in order to effect a wholesale climate change that has little chance of reaping any benefits for centuries, if at all.

Some may consider me a Luddite for not wanting to give myself over to GW prevention. Rather, I see the Luddites as those who rail against the oncoming freight train, futilely insisting that it change it's course and get run over in the process. The easier solution is to get off the tracks and let it go by.

High C
02-02-2007, 12:40 PM
...I have greater faith that our demonstrated ability to adapt exceeds our ability to quickly effect a major change on the climate. The cost in both human and ecomomic terms is lower for adaptation than a radical re-ordering of human life in order to effect a wholesale climate change that has little chance of reaping any benefits for centuries, if at all....

Brilliant!

Keith Wilson
02-02-2007, 12:42 PM
My question presupposed only two things:

1. That climate change was demonstrated - to your satisfaction - to be a result of human activity.
2. That this climate change would have significant bad effects on human civilization.

I proposed no solution at all, but asked you what you think we should do in such a case. Making no significant changes is one possible course. Do I understand correctly that your answer is: make no major changes, keep on burning fossil fuels, and adapt to the consequences?

John Bell
02-02-2007, 12:50 PM
Keith, the same models being used to predict global warming say that even if we stop burning fossil fuels this minute, that there would be not net change in what's going to happen in 100-200 years. So to answer your question, I say we don't do anything radical that has sure and certain short term negative social, political, and economic implications in the futile hope that we might stop the world from turning.

We adapt to the consequences of our actions every day. And we also try to make decisions that make sense. If a certain action will not change the consequence, and worse would give us even more dire consequences to deal with, then why take the action?

This is why I want to see the cost/benefit analysis before we do anything stupid. Why is that so hard? Is this not a reasonable request?

Keith Wilson
02-02-2007, 12:59 PM
John, I agree with you. Much of the damage has already been done,and radical solutions implemented quickly would probably be badly thought out and would likely do more harm than good. However, that's not the only alternative to doing nothing. (The Kyoto agreement was probably useless , but it was very far from radical.) Perhaps we could consider some modest things we could do in the short term to slow the process somewhat? And serious investment in research into significantly reducing carbon emissions over the long term?

John Bell
02-02-2007, 01:07 PM
Keith, I never said do nothing, I said don't do anything stupid. Legal coercion, central control, and even Kyoto, are all bad ideas. We should work on burning less stuff, but don't use economic (or authoritarian) force to move us in that direction. You'll catch more flies with honey than with salt. Part of the adaptive process will certainly be learning how to live will less reliance on fossil fuels.

TimH
02-02-2007, 01:10 PM
If Al Gore's presentation is correct, Europe has a hell of a lot at stake from global warming. When the Greenland glacier crumbles they may end up back in a mini ice age

Keith Wilson
02-02-2007, 01:15 PM
I said don't do anything stupid.I entirely agree. However I really don't understand how it is possible to reduce any sort of pollution, much less CO2 emissions, without the force of law - which, by definition, is central control and legal coercion. If there's a better way, please tell me about it.

High C
02-02-2007, 01:17 PM
If Al Gore's presentation is correct, Europe has a hell of a lot at stake from global warming. When the Greenland glacier crumbles they may end up back in a mini ice age

So why do you suppose enlightened, green, liberal Europe is taking no action?

Popeye
02-02-2007, 01:44 PM
.. a radical re-ordering of human life in order to effect a wholesale climate change


spin control

i read a figure estimating ~ 1% reduction in gdp if some steps were implemented

too radical?

Popeye
02-02-2007, 01:46 PM
".. a radical re-ordering of human life in order to effect a wholesale climate change "

why would the climate changes be 'wholesale' , how about just a small discount off the retail price?

John Bell
02-02-2007, 01:47 PM
spin control

i read a figure estimating ~ 1% reduction in gdp if some steps were implemented

too radical?


Yes, if there is no measureable benefit.

Popeye
02-02-2007, 01:48 PM
big if

TomF
02-02-2007, 01:56 PM
In government circles, this is precisely why it's desperately hard to get real money pumped into prevention programs. One can very rarely impute direct cost/benefit relationships. And even when they're proved, the benefits are out of the scope of either policymakers' or citizens' own interests.

We knew over 15 years ago, thanks to a bunch of research on the Perry Pre-School Project that every $1 spent on HeadStart-like programming (with some specific quality benchmarks in the programs) nets $27 in unspent costs in schools, prisons, child welfare etc. To say nothing of the productivity gains from having those kids participate well in society. But it's still an up-front cost that's vastly hard to sell.

We know that the single best magic-bullet for prevention of any number of types of chronic disease is moderate exercize. Couple that with appropriate eating habits, and the cost and strain on the health care system would drop by well over a third. It's desperately hard to get governments to invest real money, or real tax incentives, to promote this.

Global warming's no different. Or rather, the difference is that the benefits of whatever "secondary prevention" we can now do won't be available to us, or our children, or possibly even our grandchildren. It makes the political marketability and the potential to motivate citizen action very tenuous indeed.

But we won't be thanked in 200 years.

John Bell
02-02-2007, 02:00 PM
This is harsh, and I expect to be roundly excoriated for saying it, but I frankly could care less about what happens in 200 years. Trying to manipulate history via the butterfly effect is pointless.

TomF
02-02-2007, 02:02 PM
200 years is closer than you think. My house is 150. If looked after, it could easily be around then.

Popeye
02-02-2007, 02:03 PM
agree tomf , a little custodial care of the environment pays out huge social dividends

it's a no brainer

TomF
02-02-2007, 02:07 PM
agree tomf , a little custodial care of the environment pays out huge social dividends

to me it's a no brainerIt might just be that the Newfies' experience with the crap management of the cod stocks has sensitized them to look beyond their own generation a bit. To see a centuries-old livelihood disappear in a generation prolly leads one to pay attention to the need for inter-generational stewardship.

Popeye
02-02-2007, 02:23 PM
.. the crap management of the cod stocks ..


it wasn't that good