| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/15/2008 7:15:55 PM | My attitude is quite simple. I know from direct experimental observation that if I snap a piece of wood in half I can never, regardless of how long I take and how much care and skill I use, get that piece of wood to rejoin perfectly without at least the odd splinter that wont fit back into place right. And then theres the glue I have to use too.
What little we humans understand about our earth's climate system seems to suggest that it a system that has several tipping points built in, these tipping points could be like the deep oceans, the rain forests oh and the artic pole. Once we raze the forests to the ground, nature cannot in a human lifetime grow them back: soil erosion occurs that leads to a cycle of vegetation loss then changes in water flows that have knock effects down stream, local climate changes because of changes in water evapouration rates and ground temperature. Once the ice caps melt then it will be thousands of years before they reform: meanwhile sea levels rise flooding many many low lying countries, massive injections of fresh cold water into the ocean system upsets the flows that have exchanged warm and cold water, nutrients and CO2 around the world for eons.
When all these and more effects have occured who knows what ultimately will be the result. But the danger is that it will cost millions of lives, billions of dollars and ruin vast areas of agricultural land and fishing waters. It is a human certainty. An absolute guarantee. A dead cert. A sure thing that when resources like fresh water and food become scarce then we humans will fight to the death. The wonderful EU could rip it's tender fragile bonds of european cooperation asunder if it meant populations starving. Do you really think countries like the USA who have in the last 50 years demonstrated a desire to be the world top dog will shrug their shoulders and let half their population starve if they could feed them simply by invading a few lesser countries. And as every general and his politician knows, in a conflict you can soon decimate the population and thereby reduce the demands on the system, cynical but true.
So I say why take the chance. No one is saying you have to walk the streets naked to work or live in a tent and wash in the river. If we can remove the possiblility of global climate change by driving and flying less, using less heating and AC in the home and buying only the food we are gonna eat instead of too much, then for such an insignificant change in lifestyle to protect our and our grand children's future, why don't we. What is the point in risking all just so we can party now. We never had it so easy. Even 50 years ago but people weren't complaining then that they couldnt drive where they wanted at the speed they wanted and generally waste as they wanted. So how can we be missing out now. Greedy little children who eat all the cake at once usually get sick and end up throwing up what they wanted so much of.
Are you happier when you sit in front of the 52" plasma widescreen munching half a 18" deep pan pizza then you used to be in days before pizza delivery. You certainly aren't any fitter or brainier. The armed forces keep complaining about unfit recruits, the employers complain about university students who can't spell, do basic arithmetic in their head and have no sense of work ethic. And judging by how many presciptions for anti depressants are given each year we aint happy with all this excess.
Amongst the many many exotic and weird bugs and diseases about the world, I remember reading about one in particular which might just of spread to the civilised world without been noticed by the WHO. It's a disease that makes people suicidal. I can't remember the details now but sufferers become increasingly down until they kill them selves. I'm wondering now if thats what the west is doing to itself. Are we going to follow the roman empire down the pan by eating drinking and driving ourselves to death. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/16/2008 12:43:23 PM | Despite what we all hear in the media (TV, newspapers, etc.), the science is far from settled on the topic at hand. One early poster asked if there were any peer-reviewed papers stating that greenhouse is either greatly exaggerated or a non-factor. I can reference several. Here are some:
Zhen-Shan & Xian; multi-scale analysis of temperature change (Meteorology & Atmospheric Physics, vol. 95, nos. 1-2, 2007); who state in their conclusion that greenhouse warming is "grossly exaggerated."
Khilyuk & Chilingar; On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved? (Environmental Geology, Vol. 50, no. 6, August 2006). The authors conclude that human activities cause about a .01 degree celsius rise in temperature.
Lindzen; Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997). The author concludes that the changes brought by a doubling of co2 are negligible.
Gerlich & Tscheuschner; Falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse effects within the frame of physics (Physics, 2007). The authors test the hypothesis within the framework of physics, and find the the "greenhouse effect" fail the tests.
Idso; co2 induced global warming: a skeptics view of potential climate change (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69-82, 1998). The author concludes: "natural experiments based on real-world observations suggest that a global warming of no more than a few tenths of a degree could result from such a co2 increase ( i.e. doubling of co2).
Singer; Human contribution to climate change remains questionable (EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Society, vol. 80, pp. 183-187, April 20, 1999). The author concludes: "The observational evidence described above suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gasses is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctualtions of climate, and therefore inconsequential."
Schwartz; Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system (Journal of Geophysical Research, 2007). The author concludes that the IPCC's claim that a doubling of co2 will produce a 2.5 to 4.5 degree celsius increase in global temperature is too high, and says only a 1.1 degree increase can be expected for that same doubling.
Obviously, from this sampling of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, it's clear who's been lied to. I could reference many more papers that question the role of greenhouse gasses in climate change. I can reference hundreds that dispute the impacts claimed by greenhouse alarmists about climate change, which are the only real purpose behind any legislation attempting to reduce greenhouse emissions (i.e. if there were no "bad" things predicted to happen---like accelerating sea level rise supposedly swallowing inhabited islands and flooding coastal cities---there'd be no point in trying to halt greenhouse emissions).
Before some of you ask why I referenced some papers that are clearly out-dated, it's because the claim of advocates and alarmists that there's no published work disputes their claim: that climate change is caused by human greenhouse emissions which, if left unchecked, will cause a human global catastrophe. Al Gore mentioned it in his movie, and it's often repeated or implied in many media, and they usually cite the work of Naomi Oreskes, published in Nature (if memory serves) in 2004. She allegedly covered the peer-reviewed literature from 1993-2004, and found no papers that disputed that claim. That, from those few that I've cited above, shows that to be completely false.
Additionally, I can cite numerous papers with alternative explanations (all scientific, found in the peer-reviewed literature) for the warming, including dozens that cite solar influences. Yes, that thing that advocates poo-poo as the basic cause of climate change is still alive and well as such in the peer-reviewed literature. I can cite several that show that the historical actions of co2 and temperature are the reverse of what must be if co2 rise causes temperature to rise---it would violate the laws of physics if co2 followed temp rise and still caused it, which is what advocates are saying. I can cite over 100 papers that show that (within the last millenium) temperatures and co2 levels don't correlate (basically, they are temp reconstructions that show that the Earth didn't have stable climate during an age of stable greenhouse gasses).
For those of you who claim that it's a settled notion, you'd best think again. Science isn't done by consensus, and there isn't one on the subject at hand. With the large number of papers published in the peer-reviewed literature skeptical of the role of greenhouse gas emissions in the claims of advocates and alarmists. In short, the claims that we're headed to doomsday if we don't do what alarmists say are questionable, at best, and certainly shouldn't subject the whole of humanity to the forcible obedience to the whims of unfounded alarmism. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:34:15 PM | Executive Summary
RofL. It’s all the same old junk again. (with a few newer ones thrown in to make it look fresh).
In Detail…
Zhen & Shan
The Article:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/Zhen-Shan--Xiuan-MeteorAtmosPhys-2007-d1227bc1-3183-456f-a935-69c263af1904.pdf
The subsequent debunking of said article:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/
Verdict: Sketchy innuendo and JUNK.
Khilyuk & Chilingar
This is Chilingar. You’ll find his junk-science plastered all over denier sites.
The debunking of said article:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=L._F._Khilyuk_and_G._V._Chilingar&redirect=no
Verdict: Chilingar? Come on, be serious. This is JUNK incarnate.
Lindzen
The Article:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Lindzen1997.pdf
Classic misinformation, classically debunked:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
Verdict: J-U-N-K spells JUNK.
Gerlich & Tscheuschner
The Article:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
The subsequent debunking of said article (Jury is still out on whether it is peer-reviewed):
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner
Read in detail:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/kramm-steps-on-another-rake-just-when.html
Verdict: Absolutely full of hot air and… JUNKiTY jUNKity Junk!
Idso
The Article:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/idso98.pdf
Idso? Denier Supreme. Please… yet another “Astroturf” Exxon-funded think tank operator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_E._Idso
Verdict: JUNK JUNK JUNK
Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
This is not even worthy of comment (unless one also agrees that smoking has no unhealthy effects…. ROFL)
Verdict: JUNK INFINITY.
Schwartz
The article:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
The analysis:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/
Verdict: Hey! A paper that is actually worthy, but, alas isn’t really denying anything… oh well, that’s what happens when people are clutching at straws.
So… that’s 6 out of 7 that are purely junk, while the one remaining, is not really supporting claims by the denial camp. This is the typical mode of operation. Namedrop and hope no one actually reads the documents and finds that they are either junk or not really in support.
Despite what we all hear in the media (TV, newspapers, etc.), the science is far from settled on the topic at hand. One early poster asked if there were any peer-reviewed papers stating that greenhouse is either greatly exaggerated or a non-factor. I can reference several. Here are some: Nope. There still aren’t any legitimate papers that provide the level of support that deniers claim as the source of their discontent. These citations are the usual host of contrived findings (you know… the “I think it’s should be this, so I’ll manipulate and cherry pick the data to prove it”. So far one has referenced NONE. Gotta love it when the denial camp thinks they finally have peer-reviewed support for their claims. If there really was one, it would get a ticker-tape parade and a 100 foot shrine built in honor of it… RoFl.
Before some of you ask why I referenced some papers that are clearly out-dated, it's because the claim of advocates and alarmists that there's no published work disputes their claim: that climate change is caused by human greenhouse emissions which, if left unchecked, will cause a human global catastrophe.
Wow. There’s so many straw men here it’s like a “Wizard of Oz” convention. No published works? No. The criticism is that there are no credible works. It is pretty clear that there is a great deal of effort by deniers to get something past “peer review” as “proof” that there are alternate findings. Most if not all of this “proof” that the current understanding is wrong is conjured confusion at best. Nice try, but this is the usual propaganda masquerading as science.
“Will cause a human global catastrophe”… Yep. Yet another straw man, the “alarmist” view is the typical exaggeration by deniers to paint the scientific community as zealots. Nope. The truth is that anthropogenic contributions to climate change are significant enough to raise concern… (as opposed to being of Hollywood disaster movie epic proportions).
Al Gore mentioned it in his movie, and it's often repeated or implied in many media, and they usually cite the work of Naomi Oreskes, published in Nature (if memory serves) in 2004. She allegedly covered the peer-reviewed literature from 1993-2004, and found no papers that disputed that claim. That, from those few that I've cited above, shows that to be completely false.
We can cherry-pick almost anything to provide support for an agenda. So far, with the 7 papers cited, only 1 is acceptable, and even it is taken out-of-context. Even if someone’s claim of “not a single paper” was completely false, that does not negate the current science (no matter how one employs this subtle innuendo).
Additionally, I can cite numerous papers with alternative explanations (all scientific, found in the peer-reviewed literature) for the warming, including dozens that cite solar influences. Yes, that thing that advocates poo-poo as the basic cause of climate change is still alive and well as such in the peer-reviewed literature. I can cite several that show that the historical actions of co2 and temperature are the reverse of what must be if co2 rise causes temperature to rise---it would violate the laws of physics if co2 followed temp rise and still caused it, which is what advocates are saying. I can cite over 100 papers that show that (within the last millenium) temperatures and co2 levels don't correlate (basically, they are temp reconstructions that show that the Earth didn't have stable climate during an age of stable greenhouse gasses).
Sure you can. There’s no argument that there are many influences on the temperature of the globe INCLUDING solar influences. The implication is that those who agree with the current science think man is the main factor. This is wholly false, and yet another straw man.
All this smoke-and-mirrors is like saying that a leaky boat has a natural cause so poking a few holes isn’t gonna make a difference. Hey! You can detect the natural leak so any manmade leak is of no consequence.
For those of you who claim that it's a settled notion, you'd best think again. Science isn't done by consensus, and there isn't one on the subject at hand.
Here’s another bit of smoke-and-mirrors. The science is a logical and tested process. Findings are corroborated by consensus. This does not make the science “done by consensus”.
Arriving at the same results by different means is a common way of proving hypotheses. One can also expect a certain amount of conflicting results. This is the nature of experimentation (especially when measuring for results amongst a lot of background noise). Deniers love to cherry-pick the results rejected due to background scatter as “proof” that the current science is wrong. Better yet, they love to postulate that if something is true, there is NO SUCH THING as scientific error (that all measurement will be absolutely in corroboration of theory). Hence any error is proof that a theory is incorrect. LoL.
Science isn’t done by consensus, but findings are certainly reinforced by it. Nice try.
With the large number of papers published in the peer-reviewed literature skeptical of the role of greenhouse gas emissions in the claims of advocates and alarmists. In short, the claims that we're headed to doomsday if we don't do what alarmists say are questionable, at best, and certainly shouldn't subject the whole of humanity to the forcible obedience to the whims of unfounded alarmism.
A large number in peer-reviewed journals? Not by a long shot when we consider the miniscule percentage they represent. As has been said, if there is an agenda to slip a paper past peer review, eventually some will get through. However, as we see, the ones being quoted are easily debunked by experts in the field. That’s all these “papers” represent.
Claims of doomsday? This is the same straw man being propped up again. Note how it is preceded by a reference that connects “advocates and alarmists”, even though only an alarmist will suggest we are heading towards a “doomsday”. Subterfuge to promote disinformation is the nature of “unfounded” denial.
Read the real stuff people. Deniers love to group any that disagree with their unsubstantiated claims as “alarmists”. This is just the usual scare-mongering of “it’s a conspiracy!” or that agreeing with the science is “sheep” mentality. Come to think of it, credibility was already proven to be hovering around zero for certain sources as well as those that speciously present them.
Finally, let The Collective quote itself with a prediction from message 159, Feb 29 2008 about deniers that has come true…
“Wait a while and bring the same old myths out again (like they are something new)? That’s what deniers do… over and over and over…” | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/17/2008 2:33:49 PM | We can cherry-pick almost anything to provide support for an agenda...
...and youre doing a bang up job of it!!
Here we go again.
Sorry, but these agendist Astro-turf blog sites you try to pass off as a legit debunking wellspring:
~www.worldclimatereport.com
~www.realclimate.org
~http://rabett.blogspot.com
...are , to say the least, self serving, slanted & 2 faced. Good try though. I expected nothing less, actually.
Next time, try not using junk sites as ammunition for branding opposing viewpoints as "junk science". Some of us dont fall for it as easily as you would expect. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:44:35 PM |
...and youre doing a bang up job of it!!
Here we go again.
Sorry, but these agendist Astro-turf blog sites you try to pass off as a legit debunking wellspring:
~www.worldclimatereport.com
~www.realclimate.org
~http://rabett.blogspot.com
...are , to say the least, self serving, slanted & 2 faced. Good try though. I expected nothing less, actually.
Next time, try not using junk sites as ammunition for branding opposing viewpoints as "junk science". Some of us dont fall for it as easily as you would expect.
“Slanted”, ”2-Faced” Gotta love that name-calling… RoFL.
Nope. You’ve tried this angle before and were called on it.
These sites dismantle and discredit the skeptics who pretend that there is science backing them up. It is the skeptics who pretend that they are NOT astroturfing. NONE of the debunking sites provided are pretending to be anything. They are perfectly legitimate in debunking the denial blogs (as if you really didn’t know that).
Nice try …again since it is nothing but a weak attempt to call out an irony that doesn’t exist (just like the last time). As was said before, simple parroting is rarely apt. Who is the rube? I leave that up to the audience at large. LoL. Go ahead and say it’s “The B0rg”.
Hey! Here’s another quote from The Collective’s Prophetic Message 159…
“No real science? No real credibility. Talking in circles? Many previous posts already have the answers being avoided. Parrot this? That’s just an avoidance tactic like most personal attacks or beating straw men. Wait a while and bring the same old myths out again (like they are something new)? That’s what deniers do… over and over and over…”
LMAO. Come on… try a new angle. Name-calling, personal attack and illogical parroting doesn’t cut it. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/17/2008 5:37:07 PM |
Nope. You’ve tried this angle before and were called on it.
These sites dismantle and discredit the skeptics who pretend that there is science backing them up. It is the skeptics who pretend that they are NOT astroturfing.
TRANSLATION: If I agree with the website bloggers , than it is factual. If I disagree with the website bloggers, it is just all hogwash.
Its my duty to repeat my charge against your repeat of claims from sites only YOU deem holy. Blogs are blogs, & agendist sites are agendist sites, no matter who they side with.
I still fondly remember your undying blind love affair with thedailygreen.com. I rest my case.
The audience at large is eerily silent. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:44:44 PM |
TRANSLATION: If I agree with the website bloggers , than it is factual. If I disagree with the website bloggers, it is just all hogwash.
RoFl. One can repeat such illogic as many times as they want, but it’s just another straw man to avoid the obvious truth that pretending to present science and calling someone on that fraud are two different things. LmAo. Go ahead. Keep repeating it.
Its my duty to repeat my charge against your repeat of claims from sites only YOU deem holy. Blogs are blogs, & agendist sites are agendist sites, no matter who they side with.
Hmm… projection is hardly a form of citation. Oh well, I guess it’s your duty. Good, you’re repeating the same deflection again.
I still fondly remember your undying blind love affair with thedailygreen.com.
Nope. That would have been the same weak attempt at equating the presentation of refuting analyses as “undying blind love”… If thedailygreen or thedailyfoamingatthemouth had essays that expose junk science, then more power too them! Whether some complete stranger to them professes to love them or not is moot. Wait a while… push out the same denial billboard and defend it with personal attacks… rOFl.
I rest my case.
One must actually have to have a case in order to rest it. Personal attacks, pretending not to understand, and wild accusations don’t make cases… well maybe on Jerry Springer, but not in real life.
The audience at large is eerily silent.
I dunno. I figure they are laughing as hard as The Collective is. Listen… you can hear it.
Here’s another quote from that prophetic message 159…
…As suspected, all this “interest” in the science behind CO2 was just an excuse to soapbox the same old denial junk Those that were honestly mistaken would have found the answers, and realized their error (… is someone going to smugly parrot this and say “yah, the error is your’s, B0rg!” now?... isn’t “priming” the audience fun?)…
There’s nothing new here. You’re just repeating yourself now… so please refer to message 159 as it is proving to easily cover off everything you are rehashing…
 | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:55:39 AM | Boy, Borg, did you GOOF!! Let's have a look at a few of these, which (by the way) are but 7 of about 400 or so papers I could reference that dispute one aspect or other of the supposed "consensus" (yep, the one that doesn't exist). The question I was answering (check earlier in the thread) was whether or not there existed peer-reviewed papers disputing the hypothesis; and there are. Needless to say, your verdicts are worth about as much as tips on wort.
To give some idea of the worth of the verdicts, let's see about the one paper he calls "legitimate." He says it doesn't "deny" anything. Well, it tests one of the great hypotheses of the advocating science, that of presumed feedback effects. The reason we hear about a rise in temps as great as all that from Al Gore and the IPCC is due to those very feedbacks. What Schwartz, using empirical science, found out is that the net effect of the feedbacks is roughly nil. That's right, they basically cancel each other. What he found was that (given everything else being equal), a doubling of CO2 (from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv) would produce about a 1 degree celsius warming---a far cry from the 2.5 to 4.5 projected by the models and the IPCC. It means that this (global warming from greenhouse) won't be a problem.
First, if you'd like, I can pull out the arsenal. You continually act as if realclimate is some scientific, politically-neutral, objective site and reference it continually in your "debunkings." Sorry, just not so. The site is run by a number of climatologists who (as it happens) are defenders of the true faith. Anything that disagrees with Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming must be destroyed.
Here comes part one of the arsenal (I suspect you'll attempt to shoot them down, so I've got more references in store for you, buddy-boy). One of those climatologists running realclimate is one Dr. Micheal Mann, a disagreeable personality if ever there was one. Most of us will recall his primary claim to fame came in 1999, when he and two others authored the infamous "hockey stick graph." There is an importance to this graph, and it's perfectly stated by one of Mann et al's scientific adversaries, Jan Esper.
In one of his many papers that disagree with Mann et al (and subsequent papers cited as supporting it), Esper stated: "So what would it mean if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al, 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al, 2005) or smaller (Jones et al, 1998; Mann et al, 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role on natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact on anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios."~Esper et al, Climate: past ranges and future changes (Quarternary Science Reviews, 24, 2164-2166, 2005).
Basically, what Esper is saying is that if there was a variable climate (as science before 1998 indicated) with low and stable greenhouse gas levels (usually using CO2 as the basic gas), then it's obvious greenhouse isn't the key climate driver that it's supposed by many climatologists. For the correlation between climate and greenhouse to exist, the climate had to be less variable, meaning the little ice age had to be less than science heretofore supposed and the medieval warm period had to be much less in impact than supposed by science. Mann et al did just that very job. Unfortunately, it wasn't without it's scientific challenges. In fact, over 150 papers (that I know of) in the peer-reviewed literature show greater variability. Although I'll only give a sampling of them here, and some are only regional in scope, taken in toto the conclusion is inescapable: that Mann et al got it wrong in wiping out most of the LIA and MWP. Climate was, indeed, more variable in pre-industrial times; a time with relatively low and stable GHG levels---which means that the correlation between GHG's and climate is very weak.
Holmgren et al, A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa (South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51, 2001)
Tyson et al, The little ice age and medieval warming in South Africa (South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126, 2000)
Huffman, Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in South Africa (Quarternary International, 33, 55-60, 1996)
Kondrashov et al, Oscillatory modes of extended Nile river records (AD 622-1922) (Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L10702, doi:10.1029/2004GL022156, 2005)
Khim et al, Unstable climate oscillations during the late holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula (Quarternary Research 58: 234-245, 2002)
Hall et al, Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer than present climate in the Ross Sea (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 10, 213-10, 217, 2006)
Ge et al, Winter half-year temperature reconstruction for the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River and Yangtze River, China, during the past 2000 years (The Holocene 13: 933-940, 2003)
Liu et al, Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China (Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL026151, 2006)
Andreev et al, Environmental changes in the Northern Altai during the last millenium documented in Lake Teletskoye pollen record (Quarternary Research 67: 349-399, 2007)
Williams et al, Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation (The Holocene 14: 194-208, 2004)
Giraudi, Middle to late Holocene glacial variations, paraglacial processes and alluvial sedimentation on the higher Apennine massifs (Italy) (Quarternary Research 64: 176-184, 2005)
Tiljander et al, A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttajarvi, Central Finland (Boreas 26: 566-577, 2003)
Martinez-Cortizas et al, Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: Archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition (Science 284: 939-942, 1999)
Mangini et al, Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the last 2000 yrs. from the stalagmite record (Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235: 741-751, 2005)
Johnsen et al, Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP-2, Renland and NorthGRIP (Journal of Quarternary Science 16: 299-307, 2001)
Lund & Curry, Florida Current surface temperature and salinity variability during the last millenium (Paleoceanography 21: 10.1029/2005PA001218, 2006)
Millar et al, Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA (Quarternary Research 66: 273-287, 2006)
Goni et al, Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela) (Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132, 2004)
Thompson et al, Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millenial time scales (Climatic Change 59: 137-155, 2003)
I'm going to cut it off there, but this small sampling of the papers I could reference all indicate that climate was, indeed, more variable during pre-industrial times (remember, that was a time of low and stable GHG levels), meaning that the greenhouse hypothesis isn't anywhere near what advocates say it is. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:36:10 PM | NiceBluiz:
I very much hope that you are right on this one; all I know is that I work with a diverse bunch of scientists and all of the ones with whom I've discussed the issue all believe in the greenhouse gas / climate change theory, that people are causing the increases in CO2, and therefore climate change, and that all the extremes in climate that we are witnessing are due to this increase in greenhouse gases....I hope that you are right, however. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/19/2008 7:00:20 AM | Hi, Novascotialass!
I honestly think I am. Understand, I'm a skeptic. I don't think it's been disproven (the anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis), but with all the evidence against it, I seriously doubt what we're being told is true. Another key problem with the greenhouse/climate connection is that (according to all the ice core data) temperature change (climate change) comes BEFORE CO2 rise (main variable greenhouse gas). The laws of cause and effect say that this is impossible, the cause of an event must come before it; therefore if temperature rise occurs before rise in CO2 (and it has, historically), then it follows that temperature change can't be caused by CO2 change---if anything, the reverse would be true.
The answer posted on realclimate.org (that Borg uses as a "debunk the skeptics" site) gives a rather mealy-mouthed answer. In a nutshell, it's that the CO2 rise occurs for 5/6 of the time that the temperature rise does, showing a correlation. Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the charge against it: that it violates the laws of physics, being that the beginning of the rise in CO2 (the alleged cause) occurs after the effect of the alleged cause (beginning of rise in temperatures). To even have a chance at being right, CO2 rise would have to begin to occur either before any beginning of rise in temperature, or at the very least occur simultaneously. It doesn't.
Hope that helps.
References:
Caillon et al, Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across termination III (Science 299: 1728-1731, 2003)
Fischer et al, Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last 3 glacial terminations (Science 283: 1712-1714, 1999)
Indermuhle et al, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica (Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738, 2000)
Monnin et al, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination (Science 291: 112-114, 2001)
Mudelsee et al, Phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and ice volume over the last 420 ka (Quarternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589, 2001)
Petit et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the last 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica (Nature 399: 429-436, 1999) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:51:19 AM |
Can you believe there are scientists actually debating if the sun effects global temperatures. Holly crap we have some dumb scientists out there. Just what do these idiots think would happen if we turned the sun off?
Now that we've ascertained that you don't understand the question, why would anyone think you knew the answer, much less cared about truth?
Explain this to us. The average surface temperature of Venus is about 750 K (close to 900 F) and fairly uniform. The average surface temperature of Mercury is varies considerably with location, but the average at various latitudes ranges from 200 K (-100 F) near the N pole to about 340 K (152 F, about 35 F warmer than a hot day in Death Valley, CA) ) at the equator. At the low end, the temperature is almost low enough to liquify nitrogen. (At the high end, at the equator, the temperature reaches almost that of Venus' average temperature.) If there is water on Mercury's poles, it would be in the form of ice. In case you aren't aware of where these planets are located, Venus orbits at a little less than 3/4 Au and Mercury at close to 1/2 Au.) You can find the rest of the planetarty data needed to calculate the amount of energy eacb of them receives from the sun and fill us in regarding the effect of the sun's variability on the temperatures of these planets and Earth (i.e., once you know why the temperature of Venus is so high.) A convincing calculation on your part would go a long way toward convincing me you are right. On the other hand, I'll take the opinions of scientists who study this stuff and base their opinions on calculations. They might be wrong, but the odds of that are much lower than the odds of you being wrong. I could get the same odds you have by tossing a coin. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/19/2008 10:04:02 AM | I honestly think I am. Understand, I'm a skeptic. I don't think it's been disproven (the anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis), but with all the evidence against it, I seriously doubt what we're being told is true.
Scientists (atmospheric scientists included) don't make statements about what is true. The make statements about the conclusions they draw from their models. Since models are just models, it's possible they could be wrong, but their conclusions are, in part, based on a quantitative analysis of how likely it is that they are wrong (e.g., see confidence interval.) Apparently, the majority of scientists who have actually done the work and created models have come to a general consensus, which might be wrong, but is considerably less likely to be wrong than self serving political rhetoric spun by people who hope their economic interests can influence the climate. Research scientists care more about being right than anything else. (For the cynical, being right serves their economic interests. Research scientists who are wrong a lot, end up in the unemployment line.) One thing is certain: the CO_2 and CH_4 being dumped into the atmosphere has some effect. All that is uncertain, is how much. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/19/2008 6:49:47 PM |
Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the charge against it: that it violates the laws of physics, being that the beginning of the rise in CO2 (the alleged cause) occurs after the effect of the alleged cause (beginning of rise in temperatures).
In order to have any validity, this statement requires that CO2 be the only cause of warming. No-one is making a claim even vaguely like that.
What is illustrated is a positive feedback loop, a good example of which is being illustrated and measured right now in the Amazon Basin and the Canadian and Russian tundras.
As temperatures rise, the permafrost and treelines move north. Trees have a lower albedo than water and muskeg, resulting in increased ground-level warming. This accelerates the move north. Rising temperatures also increase evaporation, and warming ground allows frost-trapped water to run off and erode. Tundra rapidly dries [it's already desert in terms of precipitation], and the coniferous trees catch fire more readily. Melting tundra releases trapped CH4 and CO2 [both greenhouse gases], fire destroys carbon sinks and releases soot and more CO2, and the burnt, drained ground fails to act as a decent carbon sink for years to come. So what happens first? Heating, by ANY cause. Followed by CO2, CH4, NH4 rising as effects, and added on as further causes.
Same deal in the Amazon, minus permafrost. Cut the trees and burn them, and CO2 and soot are released. The trees are no longer there to generate or trap rainfall, nor are they there to prevent erosion. Soil loses its nutrients, drains dry, and you've not only released large amounts of greenhouse gases, but destroyed the means to trap them again. Meanwhile, the run-off is dirtier and reduces the ability of marine life to do the same thing!
The only ones wound up in simple, single factors, is the "no man-made warming" crowd, with the same Al Gore ad hominems, cherry-picked sources [hundreds...out of tens of thousands], human-CO2-only-cause strawmen, etc etc etc...fallacies. The majority of relevant researchers consider human-generated sources of CO2 to be a MAIN factor [deniers deny that it's the only factor - but no-one said it was]. The majority recognize CO2 as the most significant HUMAN factor [deniers point to other human factors - which are numerically less significant; to natural sources - which haven't changed statistically]. There is also a significant difference in the biased sources used. The biased sources on the side of human mitigated climate change have a larger body of evidence and more consistant reliance on logic. Those on the denial side have a smaller body of evidence, much of it cherry-picked or distorted, and an abundance of logical fallacies. If I have to choose my bias, I'll exercise Occam's razor and a couple brain cells. I'll choose logic and greater evidence, over fallacy and cherry-picking. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/21/2008 11:24:49 AM | Abelian; you might want to look at whether or not those models being used are accurate---if they're not, then you might want to re-examine the accuracy of the "conclusions" drawn from them. If the models can't accurately reflect what's observed, then it's obvious that the flaws are too great to say anything conclusively. Remember, models are theoretical constructs, not reality---which is the real test in science for accuracy. How well does the hypothesis (which is represented in the models) stand up to observations in the real world? Not well at all. What I'll reference for you here are some of the papers found in the peer-reviewed literature showing great, massive flaws revealed from observations of real-world conditions.
Douglass et al, Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
Arking, Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, L20717, 2005)
Stainforth et al, Confidence, uncertainty, and decision-support relevance in climate predictions (Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365, 2145-2161, 2007)
McKittrick & Micheals, Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomigeneities on gridded global climate data (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
Copsey et al, Recent trends in sea level pressure in the Indian Ocean region (Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L19712, 2006) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/21/2008 2:43:40 PM |
Despite what we all hear in the media (TV, newspapers, etc.), the science is far from settled on the topic at hand. One early poster asked if there were any peer-reviewed papers stating that greenhouse is either greatly exaggerated or a non-factor. I can reference several. Here are some:
Although it's not settled insofar as scientists would like it to be, it's settled to the extent that the question is not _if_ we contribute to global warming, but _how much_. Also, your so-called peeer reviewed list of articles has at least one which isn't:
Gerlich & Tscheuschner; Falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse effects within the frame of physics (Physics, 2007).
The entire article is available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v3, which is an eprint archive intended for rapid distribution of scientific articles, not an indication of an article has been peer reviewed or even has merit. If you read literature intended for other scientists you need to read it like a scientist, i.e., research is research because the answer isn't known. Aside from one other article which attributes the effects of CO_2 as neglible, the rest only disagree over how much. Fortunately, how much is not very relevant, since whatever our contribution happens to be, we ought to minimize it. We are not going to hurt ourselves by dumping less CO_2 into the atmosphere.
Additionally, I can cite numerous papers with alternative explanations (all scientific, found in the peer-reviewed literature) for the warming, including dozens that cite solar influences.
No doubt. There are about a quarter million papers on the subject. It's probably pretty easy to cherry pick several to support almost any position.
For those of you who claim that it's a settled notion, you'd best think again. Science isn't done by consensus, and there isn't one on the subject at hand.
There, you are quite wrong. Science is done by consensus and a consensus usually takes a long time to develop. If no consensus exists, then it's because the data are hard to interpret and/or the models are not sufficiently detailed to be convincing. What science is not about is forming a political opinion and cherry picking articles to support it.
However, that isn't really to relevant here either, except to note that there seems to be a consensus that dumping CO_2 does have some effect, even among those who dismiss the idea that it constitutes a problem. Someone or possibly everyone is wrong about how much. It's a fact that a great deal of ice has melted very rapidly. It's a fact that humans dump a great deal of CO_2 and CH_4 into the atmosphere. It's a fact that those gasses CAN cause a planet to warm considerably. Venus is a planet sized example of a planet which would have a surface temperature not much different from Earth's were it not for the CO_2 and CH_4 in the atmosphere. Whatever the effect, it will not become smaller by dumping more of that into the atmosphere. There is no reason to NOT reduce emissions of those gasses. It doesn't take a genious or a lot of nit picking over the fine details regarding ``how much,'' to figure that one out.
If you need a financial indicator of global warming, look to the insurance companies. Their actuaries have been figuring in the costs associated with changes in the weather for quite some time, since they have to pay the costs associated with the effects of global warming on the weather. While the actuaries care only about the statistics and not necessarily establishing the cause-effect relationship, their data parallels that of the scientists who have concluded emissions of CO_2 and CH_4 have had a non-negligible effect. Since I am a scientist and my expertise is not weather science, so I leave it to those who have the expertise in this field to eventually arrive at a consensus. Unless you have a good reason to keep dumping these gasses into the atmosphere when it's possible to reduce the amount being dumped, I don't see why you're opposed to reducing emissions. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/21/2008 2:58:47 PM | Unfortunately, Frogeyes, you're badly mistaken there. That is almost exactly the claim, that human-produced greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) are forcing climate changes (represented by rising temperatures). What you're saying is that CO2 acts as a feedback, rather than a forcing. I would point out that CO2 declines also follow the temperature decline, as shown in those articles I referenced before.
Also, if what you're saying about all the "feedback loop" is correct, then why is methane not been rising consistently with your notion? According to Dlugokencky et al. and Khalil et al., methane levels have not increased significantly in nearly 10 years. If what you say is true, as permafrost releases more methane according to most advocates, then this should be on the rise, not on a decreasing trend.
As for temperatures rising, I would make another point that doesn't fit with the anthropogenic greenhouse hypothesis. According to the best data, there's been no significant temperature trend in the last 10 years, coupled with a 4% rise in CO2 during that time. This really shouldn't be happening if the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is, indeed, fact. But it does square well with what's said by another paper Borg blew off as "junk," that being Zhen-Shan & Xian. They've been blown off by him and his linked detractors due to the fact that they think that, with lessening solar activity we should be starting a cooling (which isn't exactly far off base with recent temperature trends). Looks like the peer-reviewed Zhen-Shan & Xian could easily be right.
I would contend that you're quite incorrect in your assertion of which side has more consistency and logic on their side. Logic (in a scientific framework) requires that a hypothesis be tested against reality, not computer climate models (theoretical constructs). It also requires that any hypothesis unable to pass the test against reality (by way of empirical science) be listed as doubtful (if not entirely discarded). AGW fails this test time and again during tests of empirical science.
If by greater evidence you mean more papers express an opinion explicitly, I'd say you could easily be wrong. Papers on the key elements of AGW seem roughly about even, although a great number of papers seem to ASSUME the notion of AGW as it relates to the subject they're writing on. From a scientific standpoint, this shouldn't be done, either.
You also make many assumptions in your diatribe. One I'll point out as an example here. You say that, for instance, "natural sources" of climate change forcings "haven't changed statistically." I'd point out one that has (and, mind you, this is but one), and it's a greater variable than previously thought. It's the Earth's large scale reflectance, which lessened from 1984 to 2000, which would explain how no significant change in solar irradiance could have produced much of the warming the Northern Hemisphere (in particular) experienced in that period of time (Goode & Palle, 2007)---much more than allowed for by advocates in assigning "blame" to greenhouse.
I continue to point out the fallacy of assuming AGW as fact based solely on what some scientists say, who all the while scream out that there's a consensus, when such a thing as "consensus" doesn't even matter. I'll continue to point out that advocates and alarmists cherry-pick their own science---the very fact that substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers exist that contradict (or at least point out serious flaws) in the AGW hypothesis proves who actually cherry-picks papers to prove it's assumptions (as the IPCC does).
References:
Dlugokencky et al, (Geophysical Research Letters, 30: 10.1029/2003GL018126, 2003)
Khalil et al, Atmospheric methane, trends and cycles of sources and sinks (Environmental Science and Technology 10.1021/es61791t, 2007)
Goode & Palle, Shortwave forcing of the Earth's climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun's irradiance and the Earth's reflectance (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 69, 1556-1568, 2007)
Zhen-Shan & Xian, Multi-scale analysis of temperature change (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, vol. 95, nos. 1-2, 2007) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/21/2008 6:56:06 PM | Abelian, the problem with what you're charging me with (being opposed to reducing emissions) is simply inaccurate. I'm opposed to utilizing force to reduce emissions unless conclusively shown to be necessary. There are reasons to reduce emissions, but those better ones don't include climate change. Such as reducing (or, better, elimination of) dependence on foreign oil---or, better yet, dependence on fossil fuels in general, as these aren't renewable. Once they're gone, they're gone.
Fact is, if it weren't for the notion that this whole global warming thing will be "catastrophic," this whole argument would be an academic excercise. That should explain why I ignored Borg's charge of "strawman" when I spoke of the alarmist position.
Basically what I'm telling you, Abelian, is that until you can prove sufficiently that there's a real threat behind these emissions, I'll simply say to let people decide for themselves if and when they'll take part in reducing emissions. Fact is, there doesn't appear to be a problem, let alone a threat. All the supposed dire impacts have met even more vigorous opposition in their respective fields of science, based on obervational science, which invalidates practically any real concern. Until you can demonstrate one, then let the individuals acting in the market decide for themselves. I fail to see why this isn't an option for most advocates. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/24/2008 1:03:47 PM | In Summary
This recent spate of “new evidence” is really just the very same old half-truths and mythology (although some have new “wrapping”) that was predicted in The B0rg’s message 159. It’s the tired old routine of “here’s a new one!” followed by personal attacks and character assault from the wings when the old myth is challenged. After that, another pile of junk is dragged out. It gets debunked, which generates another round of personal attacks from deniers instead of debate. That is quickly followed by a retreat to another tired myth.
Note the slight change in that the subterfuge is now more focused at the elements of the climate change model, rather than the concept of anthropogenic contribution learned from interpretation of historical data. Today’s non-sequitur shift is to link any inaccuracy of a computational model as proof of overall falsehood. All deniers are proving is that a disregard for logic; suspect reading comprehension, disrespect for academia and contempt for others seem to go hand in hand with the false notion that contrarian thought is automatically more profound.
Flooding a thread with the names of papers that supposedly support denial (we all can likely find these same 400 on some denial machine site too) is just filibustering. Furthermore, upon examination, all we find is misinterpretation and cherry-picked comments or papers that have already been subsequently and logically refuted. The best we’ll get are papers that question the accuracy of some aspect of a climate change model, data gathering or data interpretation. Rarely (if ever) do you see peer-reviewed papers that succinctly claim that the current understanding of climate change and how anthropogenic factors affect it are as doubtful as deniers like to imply (Aside from the Exxon-funded ones of course).
Using Jan Esper as support of denial??? This alone condemns one to the “Climate science is wrong, and I’ll throw out links and false reasons till people get tired of proving me wrong” crowd.
When The Collective was still just a lurker, some denier tried this very same ploy against another critic and failed. Not only that. As a consequence of that attempt, that denier lost his credibility by showing a lack of understanding of basic logical concepts as well as using carefully edited half-truths to promote myth. He must have known that too, since he was curiously absent from that Climate Change threads for some time afterwards. That thread was deleted since then (and that is perhaps why someone would try this again), but we are sure that many reading this, will have read that one too. Hopefully one of them will be reading this and corroborate this historical account (as well as let us know just WHO that emasculated denier was).
You have engaged The B0rg.
Resistance is Futile.
.
.
.
For those who wish to continually challenge with the same old junk…
Msg 192
Fact is, if it weren't for the notion that this whole global warming thing will be "catastrophic," this whole argument would be an academic excercise. That should explain why I ignored Borg's charge of "strawman" when I spoke of the alarmist position.
Nope. The misconception that claiming those who do not deny anthropogenic contribution to climate change point towards “catastrophic” consequences is only purposeful misrepresentation of those criticizing “deniers”. This is the classic straw man argument since the science tells of things not quite as dramatic as that. Ignoring the fact that others can see this does not make it invisible to even oneself.
The fact is that it is by far deniers who hope to integrate politics, as well as personal rancour into the discussion since it distracts from the real science. (Please don’t bother bringing up “Al Gore” as “the voice” for science and going on with some argument to title him a hypocrite… that is politicizing.) This topic IS an academic exercise on atmospheric CO2, yet one side continues to try and turn it into both a political battle and a personal brawl (using the term “buddy boy” to refer to someone with a differing view, Msg 183 paragraph 4… please... like that is representative of an someone honestly attempting to be academic.) As far as the science goes, all we see is the same cherry-picked comments being hoisted up. As soon as these comments are debunked, its time for a personal attack or some deflection followed by a retreat to yet another false position.
Until the time deniers actually attempt to stay academic (much less admit flaw when it is pointed out), they will just keep moving on to the next fallacy when exposed. Watch. All deniers will do is throw in a few insults (sometimes camouflaged, sometimes blatant), make specious claims, and post up a “new” set of references. Rarely, if ever, do you see them remain on a point once their illogic has been exposed (Well, aside from the times they just pretend not to hear the flaws).
As for temperatures rising, I would make another point that doesn't fit with the anthropogenic greenhouse hypothesis. According to the best data, there's been no significant temperature trend in the last 10 years, coupled with a 4% rise in CO2 during that time. This really shouldn't be happening if the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is, indeed, fact. But it does square well with what's said by another paper Borg blew off as "junk," that being Zhen-Shan & Xian. They've been blown off by him and his linked detractors due to the fact that they think that, with lessening solar activity we should be starting a cooling (which isn't exactly far off base with recent temperature trends). Looks like the peer-reviewed Zhen-Shan & Xian could easily be right.
One really has to get an understanding of how functions with dependencies on multiple variables behave before attempting to argue these points. The illogic presented here is like saying, “there is no theft of $50 because my account just grew by $150” while ignoring the fact that you just deposited $200 in your account. Since some posters have been called on this fallacy before, people who participate on these threads but continue to apply such illogic, either really don’t get the basics, or, they are simply in denial. The history will show that it is very much the latter (and possibly even a combination with the former). There is also the distinct possibility that they really do understand, but are hoping that there are people in the audience that don’t, thereby passing fiction for fact via false (but appearing valid) logic.
Zhen-Shan & Xian’s paper was “blown off” because they think with lessening solar activity we should be starting a cooling trend? Wow! That is the most blatant straw man argument to date since neither The Collective nor the folks at realclimate made any such statement. There should be some sort of Forum award handed out for this one.
Nope. That straw man doesn’t apply.
That “paper” was blown off because of how its actual “primary conclusion” is wholly irrelevant to their subsequent aside that, at best, implies a “possible” overstatement of CO2 effect. Here is the conclusion for those averse to clicking onto the supplied link in our post 178:
“And again, our primary conclusion, i.e., that atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a key determinant of periodic variation of the global temperature. The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect.”
Yes. THAT is the “primary conclusion”. For “periodic” variation is the important qualifier. The paper merely demonstrates that several distinct periodic mechanisms can be extracted from the climate data commonly used via their methodology. Does it DENY that CO2 increases will increase the global mean temperature? NO. There are other variables that have cyclical influence embedded in the history. That’s nothing new.
The conclusion then goes on to say in reference to the record from the 40’s to the 70’s (in case deniers think this is a cherry-pick, people can go read the conclusion in it’s entirety in the link provided):
“Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.”
The problem is that the authors neither implies this to be a conclusion, nor do they show it to be proven at all. It is merely a “possibility” in order to justify their data model. It is like stating that aliens MIGHT have caused it. RoFl. From this single sentence, yet another claim of peer-reviewed dissent is posted. If someone said it was alien intervention, they could “easily” be right too. If anything, they are being deliberately vague providing reason for their solution’s larger time scale mode. Interested parties can Google concepts like “overfitting” in data modeling to see what we are talking about.
Yep. Once again, either deniers really do have absolutely poor reading comprehension, or, this is yet another laughably tenuous bit of “support”. This is why those who choose to vehemently support denial really have a tough time convincing anyone that they are employing anything remotely resembling critical thinking. (LoL… some even think that merely replying with essentially a “no… YOU are wrong” is an equally substantial argument).
Msg 189…
Abelian; you might want to look at whether or not those models being used are accurate---if they're not, then you might want to re-examine the accuracy of the "conclusions" drawn from them. If the models can't accurately reflect what's observed, then it's obvious that the flaws are too great to say anything conclusively.
This is yet another fallacy. A model needn’t predict with precision in order for important conclusions to be drawn from it. For example, one may not be able to “accurately” model the damage from a projectile (much less accurately measure the variables required even if they had a near-perfect equation), yet one can conclusively ascertain the certainty of grievous damage it will inflict. Many models do not measure things with absolute precision either. Yet they are used to build structures that behave as predicted.
This notion ”that conclusions drawn from a model that does not yield absolute precision are faulty” is to purposely confuse precision with direction.
Remember, models are theoretical constructs, not reality---which is the real test in science for accuracy. How well does the hypothesis (which is represented in the models) stand up to observations in the real world? Not well at all. What I'll reference for you here are some of the papers found in the peer-reviewed literature showing great, massive flaws revealed from observations of real-world conditions.
Models undergo refinement. This doesn’t mean the original model or premise is worthless.
More importantly, the absence of a highly accurate model does not eliminate a hypothesis. In order to prove a functional relationship a rudimentary model would suffice. In order to substantiate the relative effect of a variable, something with some predictive consistency is all that is required. Examples of these are used all the time in physical science as well as behavioural psychology. The ability to predict the actions of people is often based on a model, and may not be 100% accurate (nor will they contain variables that are difficult to gather in practice). However, it proves to be pretty good at predetermining the behaviour of consumers and criminals alike. It’s pretty good at calling denier online behaviour too.
Probability models are very good at increasing the profitability of banks, insurance agencies and casinos. Yet, there is no guarantee that one can’t “beat the house”… Are we to throw out the whole science of probability based on some guy winning a lottery against the odds?
The sneaky shift here is this… Instead of debating the validity that atmospheric CO2 rise has been a correlated to the recent Global Mean Temperature record, the “cause for concern” now is the lack of a precise model to predict Global Mean Temperatures in the near future. That’s like saying, we know that a McKing Big Whop burger diet has given someone a bad case of hardened arteries… but since we don’t have a model that predicts just what his blood pressure will be next fall, the WHOLE concept of “ lotsa greasy burger is bad for you” must be thrown out. Yes. That is what “throw out the concept because you don’t have an accurate model that uses the concept” is doing.
LoL. Nice try, but wrong again.
Msg 183…
Boy, Borg, did you GOOF!! Let's have a look at a few of these, which (by the way) are but 7 of about 400 or so papers I could reference that dispute one aspect or other of the supposed "consensus" (yep, the one that doesn't exist). The question I was answering (check earlier in the thread) was whether or not there existed peer-reviewed papers disputing the hypothesis; and there are. Needless to say, your verdicts are worth about as much as tips on wort.
Goofed? Nope. Even that paper was not disputing the nature and applicability of anthropogenic climate change. No amount of taking comments out-of-context (yup. “cherry-picking”) will support dubious claims that it is refuting the science (much less refuting anthropogenic climate change altogether).
Yes. The challenge was to produce peer-reviewed papers that, in summary, dispute the understanding that anthropogenic influence on the climate is real and measurable. It is NOT the same as finding papers that contain postulates, when taken out of context, and further couched to imply that such postulates are within the context of a wholly opposite conclusion, exist. The former is still unresolved. The latter is the specious “cherry-picking” subterfuge that The Collective predicted would be used again by deniers. It also does not include citing papers that are subsequently refuted by further research or just plainly proven to be built on false pretences.
Just like how many deniers feel that by labelling Al Gore as a hypocrite, the science automatically inherits the same label, they hope to do the same here. Of course it’s much better to discredit the logic, and if it is shown to be a habit, the vendor of that illogic is similarly discredited. However, “needless to say” (yet here we are saying it… LoL), one completely fails, when their means of dismissal is yet another disambiguation. So, nope, wrong again.
Does anyone notice the irony of filibustering by name-dropping paper after paper supposedly in support of denial? Here we have deniers passionately discrediting the concept of “truth by consensus”, yet what is boasting about 400 papers doing? Is that not promoting a truth by consensus? Of course, one will see that these 400 or so papers (aside from the ones penned by Singer or other EXXON funded “researchers”) are mainly papers that contain questions about certain aspects of the data analyses. Few will actually deny the conspicuous effects of anthropogenic factors in climate change (As was shown with Zhen-Shan and Xian. LMAO… “Esper” said so? Alright… we’ll cover Esper too…)
To give some idea of the worth of the verdicts, let's see about the one paper he calls "legitimate." He says it doesn't "deny" anything. Well, it tests one of the great hypotheses of the advocating science, that of presumed feedback effects. The reason we hear about a rise in temps as great as all that from Al Gore and the IPCC is due to those very feedbacks. What Schwartz, using empirical science, found out is that the net effect of the feedbacks is roughly nil. That's right, they basically cancel each other. What he found was that (given everything else being equal), a doubling of CO2 (from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv) would produce about a 1 degree celsius warming---a far cry from the 2.5 to 4.5 projected by the models and the IPCC. It means that this (global warming from greenhouse) won't be a problem.
The Collective says that paper didn’t deny anything. Yes, within context that is the case. However, this is purposely taken out of context to form another straw man argument.
The paper does not deny the mechanism or the effects that a rise in atmospheric CO2 has on the earth’s climate. To imply that anyone who says, “Schwartz isn’t denying anything” is “goofing” is conveniently ignoring the difference between, “is” and “how much” (sounds like something Bill Clinton would say). The implication of “doesn’t deny anything” was obvious. To express this as meaning, “Schwartz is in 100% agreement with both direction and magnitude of net forcings” is to intentionally misconstrue the meaning.
Those that smugly think that this paper represents a denier’s view of C02 and climate change may want to read it, ALL of it, a little more carefully. Make sure to understand it in the context of why science questions itself, and the implications behind how confidence intervals, variance, etc… are interpreted. Gotta love it when someone pulls a single number out of a solution and quotes it like it’s the “answer”.(kinda like cherry-picking a cherry-picking).
First, if you'd like, I can pull out the arsenal. You continually act as if realclimate is some scientific, politically-neutral, objective site and reference it continually in your "debunkings." Sorry, just not so. The site is run by a number of climatologists who (as it happens) are defenders of the true faith. Anything that disagrees with Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming must be destroyed.
No one is acting, or declaring that sites that contain explanations that debunk denier claims as “neutral”. That’s just a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position that one can beat down (the proverbial “straw man”). Deniers seem to love employing straw men arguments! “Anything that disagrees with anthropogenic…” is yet another straw man.
In regards to this, it really doesn’t matter if debunking material was hosted on a “green” site, a “Martha Stewart” site or any site for that matter. If the reasoning is sound that’s all that matters. Similarly if the reasoning is unsound, as in the case of most information coming from Exxon supported sites, it is all that matters. The fact that Exxon chooses to support such dubious propaganda has obvious connotation.
As far as the political affiliation of these quoted sites, it is moot if their reasoning is valid in debunking the misinformation speciously presented. We are certain most deniers are aware of that, and only choose to deflect the focus away from it.
Besides, what site that contains explanations debunking mythology will NOT be considered “biased” by the promoters of myth?
As far as “pulling out the arsenal”, this is the same sabre-rattling that deniers have gone on with for years on this forum. When 6 of 7 “volleys” are shown to be completely impotent (with the remaining one really just something taken out of context), there is little fear generated. That includes papers implicating albedo variations… which are shown to be faulty soon afterwards since satellite data shows no corroborating evidence.
Supply as many of the 400 links as you wish. The track record already shows that they don’t quite qualify as “denying the concept of anthropogenic factors in climate change”. That’s all that was necessary to show that it is subterfuge. Aside from the ones funded by the denial camp such as…
Douglass et al, Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/DavidDouglas2004GL020103_altitude.pdf
(LoL… Notice that the Authors include S. Fred Singer. Here’s the wiki-wacky on good ole Siegfried Singer… Readers can draw their own conclusions on how Exxon affects Singer’s “judgement”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
… these papers are merely proof that the discipline of science means testing any and all elements that contribute to the truth as a way of ensuring quality. Likely due to a desperate need to present peer-reviewed support, deniers like to couch the intent of such essays as, “see… here’s a bona fide denial from a real scientist”. Please.
Here comes part one of the arsenal (I suspect you'll attempt to shoot them down, so I've got more references in store for you, buddy-boy). One of those climatologists running realclimate is one Dr. Micheal Mann, a disagreeable personality if ever there was one. Most of us will recall his primary claim to fame came in 1999, when he and two others authored the infamous "hockey stick graph." There is an importance to this graph, and it's perfectly stated by one of Mann et al's scientific adversaries, Jan Esper.
In one of his many papers that disagree with Mann et al (and subsequent papers cited as supporting it), Esper stated: "So what would it mean if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al, 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al, 2005) or smaller (Jones et al, 1998; Mann et al, 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role on natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact on anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios."~Esper et al, Climate: past ranges and future changes (Quarternary Science Reviews, 24, 2164-2166, 2005).
First an important observation…
Ever notice how climate change deniers really want to turn any discussion into a more personal fight? When one has little “science” backing them up (really “none”, but we will call it “little” for dramatic effect), it is common to try and deflect any debate into a mud-slinging match. That way, anyone witnessing it will dismiss BOTH sides as just trying to shout each other down and thereby ignore the real facts. Those without merit have nothing to lose then… see how that works?
(We fully expect some will no doubt inaptly reply to this with, “You’re good at this too, B0rg”… LoL)
Now to the matter at hand…
Jan Esper??? When The Collective was still just a lurker year, some denier tried this very same ploy against another critic and failed. Not only that. As a consequence of that attempt, that denier lost his credibility by showing a lack of understanding of basic logical concepts as well as using carefully edited half-truths to promote myth. He must have known that too, since he was curiously absent from that Climate Change threads for some time afterwards. That thread was deleted since then (and that is perhaps why someone would try this again), but we are sure that many reading this, will have read that one too. Hopefully one of them will be reading this and corroborate this historical account (as well as let us know just WHO that emasculated denier was).
Here, in order to misrepresent Esper, the all-important last words of Esper’s conclusion have been left out. These last words are…
“If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought. This scenario, however, does not question the general mechanism established within the protocol, which we believe is a breakthrough.”
So… people… see how cherry-picking sentences out-of-context works? Leave out the sentences that don’t support your claim and put the stuff that does on a billboard. RofL.
Msg 185
honestly think I am. Understand, I'm a skeptic. I don't think it's been disproven (the anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis), but with all the evidence against it, I seriously doubt what we're being told is true. Another key problem with the greenhouse/climate connection is that (according to all the ice core data) temperature change (climate change) comes BEFORE CO2 rise (main variable greenhouse gas). The laws of cause and effect say that this is impossible, the cause of an event must come before it; therefore if temperature rise occurs before rise in CO2 (and it has, historically), then it follows that temperature change can't be caused by CO2 change---if anything, the reverse would be true.
That Frogo guy was bang on in his analysis of your statement.
This whole “defies the laws of physics” shows a real lack of understanding of how multi-variable functions behave. That is NOT a disparagement but a valid observation. With differing periods and amplitude of many inputs one can totally expect to see instantaneous rates of change in directions opposite to the relationship of a given variable’s. This is because there are other variables cycling into the mix at various rates of interaction (all things “aren’t” equal in real life).
Applying a simplistic single variable “law of cause and effect” on a multi-variable scenario is fallacious when all important variables are in play (please don’t confuse this with thinking that science hasn’t accounted for these multiple dependencies). To assume that temperature rise independent of CO2 concentration rise is proof that there is no correlation for that single variable in a multiple dependency function is beyond hasty. It is nonsense.
This alone renders any further comment on this subject from this source pretty suspect. Having contempt for the B0rg doesn’t change the impact of The Collective’s comments. Having contempt for academia doesn’t mean mathematical relationships become equally in contempt of reality. If one truly wants to understand this stuff, it may help to get the fundamentals right before taking such an ardent stance.
If one chooses to continue the defiant posturing instead of admitting they are basing opinions on a combination of regurgitation from denier sites, emotion and practical unfamiliarity rather than educated and objective research, it only reinforces the truth that deniers really have nothing. For those that wait in ambush… personal attacks, parroting and basically behaving like a bully just gives us more insight into the roots of denial, but, do not provide any support for a faulty argument.
Replies with asides, straw man arguments followed by another list of misrepresented papers (either cherry-picked, subsequently debunked, or originating from sources of ill-repute), or simply saying “You’re Wrong!” followed by a jump to another misrepresentation? We really don’t expect anything else (well aside from the usual sniper personal attacks from flanks – Roflmao).
Refer to posting 159. Rinse, and repeat. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/24/2008 3:13:10 PM |
Basically what I'm telling you, Abelian, is that until you can prove sufficiently that there's a real threat behind these emissions,
Sorry, but that is a political question, not a scientific question. Given that the Earth's climate is a chaotic system, it's unlikely that ANY model will ever exist which can predict what some small change will produce to an accuracy that will always be politically adjusted to lie just beyond the range of the best available models. It's pointless to even discuss a scientific result with someone who uses the term ``sufficiently'' without quantifying it. Unless you explain in detail what ``sufficiently'' means, I can't even be sure tht every article doesn't already meet your criteria. Science can only create tractable models using the best guesses of what is important. Nobody seems to mind this when it produces aplotical devices likle MRI machines and HDTVs. As soon as there is some political objective connected, all of a sudden everyone with an opinion wants to overrule the scientific process. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/24/2008 3:27:11 PM |
Now I'm just talking about simple things like an engineers drawing so please don't tell me that all the estimated 5 millions variables that make up our climate have been fully understood by climate scientists to the point where they can say it's definately CO2.
They don't and never will. Doing science requires using what you do know and creating a tractable model to get an approximate result in spite of not having everything you want. I leave it to climate scientists to address this because they understand their models better than I do. The basic features that could lead to emissions being an urgent matter are not in dispute. Increased CO_2 leads to retaining heat. The feedback mentioned is not in dispute. What is in dispute is at what point those things become significant enough to be a problem, although ``significant enough'' and ``problem'' is partially a political issue as well. Chances are, you aren't going to consider a rising sea level significant if you live in Boulder Colorado. Scientists aren't particularly concerned about those kinds of differences in opinions. Those are irrelevant to the scientific question. So what is not a catastrophe to you doesn't matter. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:37:06 AM | Abelian, my point was in response to a question that fringed on the political. ("I don't see why you're opposed to reducing emissions"). That is why. Because I'm not sufficiently convinced that there is a real threat behind those emissions. They are not pollutants in the popular sense. They don't adversely affect human health in the trace amounts found in the atmosphere. The only threat posed, according to you (the generic "you," i.e. advocates and alarmists in general), is that of climate change. I don't know what you think will happen (I haven't seen you post it) if these emissions are left unchecked, but the general position of advocates of action (meaning the reduction of emissions) is that it will cause a series of catastrophes that threaten modern civilization---and the only way to check them (according to advocates) is to use the political process to force people (individuals and businesses) to reduce their emissions.
As for "overruling" the scientific process, that's downright false, and you know it. I'm insisting that empirical science be used, not theoretical science. All this is what will happen in theory (shown in the models), but what does reality say? That's the acid test, if you will, of any theory or hypothesis. Models are theoretical constructs, which means that what you're telling me is that testing a theory (or hypothesis) with another is scientific verification of that hypothesis. I think any amount of deductive reasoning will tell you otherwise. Such tools as MRI machines only assist in a true scientific objective---observing functions of a real object, like a human body---whereas climate models only demonstrate what will happen if a hypothesis is correct 100%.
Unfortunately, this is known (for the hypothesis under consideration) to be inaccurate. Observation after observation fails to verify what the models indicate should occur if the hypothesis (demonstrated in the models) is accurate. In empirical science, anything that fails to hold up under real conditions must be discarded as inaccurate.
Basically, if none of these "catastrophes" will occur, then this hypothesis is still an academic excercise. Climate's always changing, as geology has shown, and what causes that change is still so poorly understood that models (programmed with that same understanding) are of no practical use---yet advocates still claim them as sufficient authority to insist upon political "solutions" to the "problem" as perceived by these models. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/25/2008 4:21:51 PM | Human history is littered with man made problems affecting the health and wealth of people and sometimes the health of mother earth.
Would people who so confidentally say things like:
Because I'm not sufficiently convinced that there is a real threat
I don't know what you think will happen
use the political process to force people (individuals and businesses) to reduce their emissions.
I'm insisting that empirical science be used, not theoretical science.
In empirical science, anything that fails to hold up under real conditions must be discarded as inaccurate.
be happy to work with asbestos without the safety equipment of today?
I believe that even now there isn't concrete proof that exposure to asbestos will cause cancer. Only thousands of examples of human suffering. It is deemed sufficient in this modern civilisation that when a RISK is identified then measures are taken to mitigate that risk.
We know that if you surround an object with a gas like CO2 and then irradiate that object with sunlight you get a increase in body temperature that is greater the greater the concentration of CO2 and we can explain this affect by saying how light of different wavelengths is transmitted or reflected by the CO2 molecules. Simple science can be used to predict this.
Trouble is that mother earth isn't a simple object but she has many interlocking systems like the oceans, the atmosphere, the forests, vegetation, even the highest mountains have a part to play in the climate. Douglas Adams, the sci-fi writer probably didn't appreciate just how appropiate his idea of earth been created as a giant computer is. It is so complex with so many nodes and sub routines that it will be another 50 years maybe before we can create a computer 'system' powerful enough to accurately model earth climate. Thing is it might be too late then to change things.
We are most likely still in the area of self compensation on earth. That is why there are no consistent results to highlight how exactly a change in CO2 or CH4 or whatevermakes to the climate. As we all know the climate changes by the hour, it is never constant, the effects we are searching for are hidden in the noise of the system.
A 1000 years ago a scientist could see in his microscope little more than with his naked eye. 420 years ago lenses were made that improved the microscope and we could see more details. 200 years ago microscopes improve and we see still more of the microscopic world. 100 years ago we reach the limit of objects the width of light wavelengths. 70 years ago we have the electron microscope and can see even more detail and 25 years ago we get down to seeing atoms with perception of 3 dimensions.
The point I make here and at the start is this. It has taken time for us to develope the ability to see the details but now we can say why we believe asbestos fibres cause cancer. A 100 years ago there was neither the science or the tools to do so. Do you think a 100 years ago people would of been immune from the disease? can we only be harmed by that which we know about.
For heavens (earth's) sake WAKE UP and stop hiding under the bedcovers with your eyes tightly screwed shut hoping what you cant see wont hurt you.
Climate change could prove to be very costly in both money and life. We could see vast areas of agricultural land made barren, vast population areas flooded. Real shortages of food worldwide will result in wars and that means you and me having a rifle thrust into our hands.
It's a well known fact the majority of people are lazy but also controllable. i.e if you leave them to their own devices they will just take whatever is the easiest option. At the moment that is jumping in the car and driving to work, shops and the gym. If those of us who know that problems are coming do nothing about it we are more guilty than those who are ignorant. We have to lead the way.
The price of change is easily affordable by us rich western states. We can't play the "oh but they aren't doing it so why should we" card with China and India etc, we haven't their excuses of been developing nations. But the cost of failure to act if the worst happens is immense. Or is this head in the sand attitude a white supremacist plot?
By deliberately engineering world famines, floods and wars do certain rich white nations hope to decimate the world population and hopefully turn their bit of earth into a nice green pleasant uncrowded land of plenty for the few.
thats the only possible explanation I can think of for intelligent people to ignore the dangers and race headlong into possible irreversible climate change.
 | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:02:36 PM |
Abelian, my point was in response to a question that fringed on the political. ("I don't see why you're opposed to reducing emissions"). That is why. Because I'm not sufficiently convinced that there is a real threat behind those emissions. They are not pollutants in the popular sense. They don't adversely affect human health in the trace amounts found in the atmosphere.
True, but it is a moot point. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (trace or not) is relative to how it interacts with the climate mechanism and not how it DIRECTLY interacts with a human. Nice try at trying to play up the “insignificance” of “trace amount” when it doesn’t apply that way. Yup. Jump to another false position… see what we mean.
The only threat posed, according to you (the generic "you," i.e. advocates and alarmists in general), is that of climate change.
In those trace amounts in the atmosphere, true. There may be other threats (hey! Maybe a certain threshold of C02 in the atmosphere will attract aliens) but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
I don't know what you think will happen (I haven't seen you post it) if these emissions are left unchecked, but the general position of advocates of action (meaning the reduction of emissions) is that it will cause a series of catastrophes that threaten modern civilization---and the only way to check them (according to advocates) is to use the political process to force people (individuals and businesses) to reduce their emissions.
According to those who have studied the science, they do have some idea what will happen. One can go read it for themselves if they really wanted to. As far as stating that “advocates” see a series of catastrophes, that would be have to be qualified as to what one deems a catastrophe. Certainly the proportion we see in a Hollywood movie isn’t going to happen (no advocate is implying that), but that isn’t saying leaving the current anthropogenic contribution as it is now is the best solution.
As for "overruling" the scientific process, that's downright false, and you know it. I'm insisting that empirical science be used, not theoretical science. All this is what will happen in theory (shown in the models), but what does reality say? That's the acid test, if you will, of any theory or hypothesis. Models are theoretical constructs, which means that what you're telling me is that testing a theory (or hypothesis) with another is scientific verification of that hypothesis. I think any amount of deductive reasoning will tell you otherwise. Such tools as MRI machines only assist in a true scientific objective---observing functions of a real object, like a human body---whereas climate models only demonstrate what will happen if a hypothesis is correct 100%.
Unfortunately this is the same old red herring. The scientific process necessarily involves testing hypotheses by experimentation and other forms of referee sampling. The concepts behind model refinement have already been presented. Implying that climate science is not a “true scientific endeavor” is unfounded.
Unfortunately, this is known (for the hypothesis under consideration) to be inaccurate. Observation after observation fails to verify what the models indicate should occur if the hypothesis (demonstrated in the models) is accurate. In empirical science, anything that fails to hold up under real conditions must be discarded as inaccurate.
Rofl. This is the same old “if it’s not absolutely accurate in prediction then the whole premise should be thrown out”. That’s already been covered. Wrong again.
Basically, if none of these "catastrophes" will occur, then this hypothesis is still an academic excercise. Climate's always changing, as geology has shown, and what causes that change is still so poorly understood that models (programmed with that same understanding) are of no practical use---yet advocates still claim them as sufficient authority to insist upon political "solutions" to the "problem" as perceived by these models.
This is the classic straw man. Falsely state the position of climate science as claiming there will be these “catastrophes”. Then state that if these catastrophes are neither accurately predicted nor should any one not occur as specified, then conclude that your opposition is groundless. Nope. Try again.
This stuff is just a re-hash, and it has already been demonstrated that one is insincerely posting up half-truths and cherry-picked documentation to support yet another specious claim. No matter how much one attempts to give it a “new look”, this is just the usual denier argumentum ad nauseam.
Message 193 pretty much tells the whole story.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is futile” | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/25/2008 11:31:28 PM |
So I say why take the chance. No one is saying you have to walk the streets naked to work or live in a tent and wash in the river. If we can remove the possiblility of global climate change by driving and flying less, using less heating and AC in the home and buying only the food we are gonna eat instead of too much, then for such an insignificant change in lifestyle to protect our and our grand children's future, why don't we. What is the point in risking all just so we can party now. We never had it so easy. Even 50 years ago but people weren't complaining then that they couldnt drive where they wanted at the speed they wanted and generally waste as they wanted. So how can we be missing out now. Greedy little children who eat all the cake at once usually get sick and end up throwing up what they wanted so much of.
But 50 years ago there werent 6 billion people here, & 50 years ago nobody envisioned that there will be 12 billion 50 years from now. Nothing you do will make any difference with these obscene numbers. If you could possibly imagine the highly unlikely chance everybody on the planet cuts their energy use in half, it will end up being the same net future usage due to the extra billions. There is no answer, no matter who tells you otherwise.
So yes, the only possible way this would work with 12 billion spewers is if the whole world walks the streets naked to work or live in a tent and wash in the river. Even this isnt enough. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:18:32 PM | | yes if population doubles then even with half the energy use per person total use remains the same. But, are governments the world over going to allow this doubling. I doubt it. Even the most stupid leaders will realise as food and energy and land prices sky rocket that allowing population growth is bad news unless you want cannon fodder. With intelligent use of renewable energy sources and continued developement of battery electric vehicles we can look forward to agriculture and food processing and distribution systems that are truely carbon negative. Over the years since WWII Israel has made fantastic progress with agriculture in adverse conditions, and water recycling and use. Continuing that progress and applying it to other semi-arid lands we really could grow enough food for everyone. Despite the U.S rep for gas guzzling, they do have many solar powered schemes in areas like california, arizona where the heat of th |
| |
Home
login 
