Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 226
New study into global temperaturesPage 10 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
"WTF are you on about now here is your quote again
It's not increasing concentrations of CO2 that causes global warming, it global warming that causes increased concentrations of CO2.
Perhpas you could defend it or explain it rather than try to mobe the gola posts and discuss something else?"

I'll try to explain this again. When the oceans warm up carbon dioxide becomes less soluble in them. This causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. Thus global warming causes an increase in CO2 levels. Do you deny this?

"Lets start with you actually understanding what you say and what it means rather than asking another unrelated [ to my point] question – no you cannot move the goalposts "

It's a very much related point. You're claiming that increased CO2 levels causes global warming. I'm asking for a quantitative measurement of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures (a.k.a. climate sensitivity). The phrase "climate sensitivity" is pretty basic to the global warming issue. I'm surprised that you've never heard of it before.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 227
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 11:48:14 AM
Not sure if this was brought up somewhere else in this thread.

I found this Google graph for CO2 emissions by country. Hope the link works but the graph is a bit of a pain. I added in most influential countries and as many of everyone else as I could. http://goo.gl/tBm6L Hopefully the URL will just allow you to pick what you feel like looking at.

What I see here is that there were some offenders in Saudi between 1969 and 1980. But the majority are relatively consistent and the overall impact has been pretty steady with slight rise but over long periods.

It, in no way, shape or form correlates to
http://co2now.org/

Why is there zero correlation with measured CO2 emissions per country with the measured CO2 in the environment.

CO2 now shows a nearly straight line trend up over the past 30 years. Yet the Google graphs per country emissions show nearly flat with slight increase over the same period and very clearly shows significant spikes from the 70's to 80's drastically reduced (Saudi Arabia)

Also, if you show just the emissions for the US it reflects this same thing. There is no significant rise in emissions to support that the CO2 measured by CO2now.org has an origin in industrial emissions.

So, that leaves it open for only a few possibilities

The data on Google from public information from the World Bank is wrong
The data used on CO2now.org is wrong
Or there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between manmade CO2 emissions and what is being measured to support global warming.

If you want to say there is contribution... fine. Contribution is not causation and not being a cause means that the current standards have little measurable impact on global climate change. I like that the Air in LA is better than it was in the 80's. So, maintaining the standards is positive. We no longer have SMOG alerts. Good Job. However, unless someone can show that the world bank is falsifying data I see no evidence to support CO2 rise listed on CO2now as being in any way related to emissions, especially of the United States.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 228
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 11:58:06 AM
I'm not sure I follow your logic here.

Are you saying that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere at a steady rate means CO2 levels won't go up? Here's an experiment for you: take a bowl and put it under a dripping tap. If the level of water goes up over time, then that might help you understand.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 229
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 1:34:56 PM

if you bother to reply could you answer the following
1. do you accept man made c02 as a fact [ this is irrespective of raising temp increasing c02 they are not mutually exclusive]
2. Do you have any evidence to show c02 does not have a forcing effect - a discussion of sensitivity is only a discussion of the consequences [ and yes there is some debate and some interesting recent research on this]


1 : Yes. I am told it can be measured. In fact I believe its also literal and comes out of our bodies as respiration. So yes, man made co2 is definite fact.
2: MClimate Impact Research in Germany found much the same result from much longer-term simulations6. Their model shows that whether we emit a lot or a little bit of CO2, temperatures will quickly rise and plateau, dropping by only about 1 °C over 12,000 years.

My question:

What is the rate of natural dissipation of CO2 and has that rate changed over this same time period? I found the range between 5 years and 200 years to forever. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

So, if we don't have a clear understanding of its dissipation and no reductions that we accomplish will ever reduce the current amount. Kind of seems like the focus is in the wrong area. Even at best case of shutting down to near 0 it would take 5 years to see a reduction.

Using the example of "a bowl under a dripping faucet" as the example. Well, yes, but the problem is that we need water to survive so turning off the water isn't an option. Reducing the water to a drip was the best we could accomplish. So, where is the research, focus and investment on dissipation.

There is no solution in the current thought on global warming. This is what I don't get, don't agree with and get tired of hearing about. There are no solutions presented. Even if implemented 100% and we shut off the world for a week it would have no impact on C02 levels.

We have already reached a good level of restriction on output. We have no advancements in dissipation. All of the money is in reduction of emissions. All of the political tools are in reduction of emissions. Where is the mission to dissipate?




But there's still hope for avoiding these long-term effects if technologies that are now on the drawing board can be scaled up affordably. "If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's possible you could reverse this CO2 hangover."


Now that’s something that makes sense. The problem is that it is politically easier to tackle consumers (and not resolve the problem). It is easier to fund emissions reduction technologies (and not resolve the problem) because those can be built for profit.

Also, since plants and plankton are the primary natural mechanisms in the carbon cycle we come back to deforestation. Deforestation still seems more relevant but those countries are difficult to deal with aren’t they. And how do you clean up the oceans and bring back the life that no longer exists along our coast. I support that over reducing CO2 levels. The fossil fuel CO2 crowd is just the loudest and most proudest.

Finally, if we pulled heads out of political assess and stopped corrupting the scientific world with political agendas and let science be science we just might find that there is an actual scientific solution to the problem. However, with that solution comes a significant danger. We have never had a really strong history of positively effecting environments. If we pull off a global change in CO2 levels we have no idea of the consequences. Too much and ... early ice age. Too little and ??? Even this is a bit questionable.... Too little and ice age late?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 230
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 1:44:53 PM
We're producing more carbon emissions than the planet can absorb. How can you say, "We have already reached a good level of restriction on output."? We haven't. The levels keep increasing. It's a lot easier to reduce emissions than increasing absorption. Why should other countries have to absorb all the emissions - the cost of pollution borne by those that don't create it? Frankly, it's not even possible - we're producing too much pollution.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 231
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 2:04:07 PM
http://goo.gl/zE18V

It's clear. The reductions done have kept it stable. Only small reductions are going to be possible and only slowly by targeted industries as some technology comes in focus and an improvement is made. There is not going to be any noticeable improvement in emissions outputs as a whole for decades at best. And those reductions have zero impact on reducing co2 levels now or in the future.

Why should other countries have to absorb the emissions? Its nature and plants and oceans. Those things just happen to be in other countries. But that’s where the planet put the engines. I know, its a political problem and people depend on those industries to live. It's actually a problem isn't it? Not one that your light bulb is going to impact.

The cost of pollution borne by those that don’t create it. Really? So, in terms socialized healthcare and Medicare it's ok to put those costs on the future children but not 'the problem of carbon.' At least be consistent. It's all about sharing the burden right.

The problem is that any production is too much because of the water under a tap effect that you described. The problem isn't that we are producing too much. It's that any is too much because it's “believed” to be 'full' now. If there is no way to reduce what is there no reduction will change what exists.

Doing the wrong thing vigorously produces no better results than doing nothing half heartedly
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 232
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 2:28:27 PM

The cost of pollution borne by those that don’t create it. Really? So, in terms socialized healthcare and Medicare it's ok to put those costs on the future children but not 'the problem of carbon.' At least be consistent. It's all about sharing the burden right.

WTF is the matter with you? We have socialized medicine here. Until the downturn, we ran surplus budgets - our deficits here are a temporary thing.

And how would reducing pollution ever be considered "the wrong thing"?

I have absolutely no idea now why I even bothered engaging with you.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 233
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/17/2011 2:42:18 PM

I have absolutely no idea now why I even bothered engaging with you.


I answered your questions. I disregarded the cost portion because it is not relevant. I also said that reducing pollution was fine but not the resolution to CO2.

Didn't see anything negating my points. Wasn't trying to push your buttons.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 234
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/19/2011 11:40:12 AM
I actually think the breathing thing hasnt been focused on quite as much as it should have too tbh

The global population has increased massively since the 1950s and everyone the world over breaths incessantly.

Infact its about the only curve that reasonably matches AND actually leads the CO2 curve yet barely ever seems to get a mention

And considering the majority of the worlds population has practically a zero fossil fuel impact

I also wonder how much more fuel we would be burning in a colder climate too compared to our allegedly warmer one. And if the temperature and climate continues to warm up what would the estimated offset be due to the lower amount of energy used for heating be?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 235
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/19/2011 7:47:11 PM

I also wonder how much more fuel we would be burning in a colder climate too compared to our allegedly warmer one. And if the temperature and climate continues to warm up what would the estimated offset be due to the lower amount of energy used for heating be?


It doesn't work that way. The highest power demand days are the hottest days of the year, not the coldest. That's why you hardly ever see cold weather blackouts. We use much more energy to cool buildings than we do to heat them.

As to the effect of respiration, a quick google search yielded the following:

A back of the envelope calculation estimated that less than ten percent of total CO2 emissions come from respiration.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

But more importantly....


Humans exhale about 1 kg of carbon dioxide per day (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html). The exact amount depends on age, sex, size, and most importantly activity level. Multiply that by a world population of six billion and you get a very large number.

However, human exhalation of carbon dioxide is part of a closed system. There can be no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because the amount of carbon dioxide we exhale can’t be greater than the carbon we put into our bodies by eating plants, or eating animals that eat plants. The plants got the carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.

This closed system is true for any animal, not just humans. It is also true for a growing population. You simply can’t have more animals than there are plants to support those animals.

The reason why burning fossil fuels is a concern is because it is not a closed loop over human time scales. Extracting coal and oil and burning them puts carbon back into the atmosphere that plants removed millions of years ago.


http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C53/

This is a critical aspect of the increase in greenhouse gasses. What we've been doing is changing the delicate balance in the atmosphere by digging up stored carbon and adding it to the atmosphere. We can multiply and exhale all we want without changing that balance so long as we DON'T extract carbon from the earth and transfer it to the atmosphere.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 236
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/19/2011 11:52:44 PM

This is a critical aspect of the increase in greenhouse gasses. What we've been doing is changing the delicate balance in the atmosphere by digging up stored carbon and adding it to the atmosphere. We can multiply and exhale all we want without changing that balance so long as we DON'T extract carbon from the earth and transfer it to the atmosphere.


This cycle is very much the same as an aquarium. In an aquarium the ammonia byproduct of waste is oxidized by bacteria. The balance can be quite difficult to achieve. However, in an aquarium you have the ability to change and refresh the water to keep the levels under control. If you dig through the substrate you interrupt the bacteria and can quickly lead to an excess of ammonia and very unhappy fish.

But, I still come back to another cause that is routinely dismissed and that is ... the sun and climate change. C02 exists. We are making a mess of it. It is warming things up. But, 'milankovitch cycles'. Stupid Myans...
http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/primers/climate-change-primer.shtml

And finally levels:
Temperature:
global linear warming trend of 0.13 °C per decade over the 50 years 1956-2005

Ocean Rise:
risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr since 1961 and at 3.1 mm/yr since 1993,

The graphs look pretty impressive... But is it just me? mm is millimeters right? For the temperature its within a range of .00 and .05 with a faster climb to .05? of a degree?

We are a big enclosed environment like an aquarium. We are sensitive and we are having an impact. But why the need to scare people into the apocalypse? For me, I have been waiting for 2012 for at least 15 years now. To see the 'end of the world' scenarios brought on by the global warming 'enthusiasts' has been a perfect natural fit for coming predicted apocalypse and the sense of dread inflicted on our children has far surpassed any sandwich board end of days proclamationists.

I have to give Al Gore at least some credit for getting it into the front of the public view. However, it was done with such a high level of catastrophic, the end is here, fashion that perspective seems almost non existent.

Again, I like that our air is now cleaner. I like the efforts to keep industry from polluting. Those are good things. But I am getting a hangover on end of the world scenarios.

http://goo.gl/nWL7S CO2 scrubbers are the concept that make the most sense but are not economically viable. So, sit down, drink some coffee and stop writing off scientists with opposing opinions and let them do what they do and work the issue from multiple angles.

I can't wait for Christmas 2012. Since 2012 is pretty much the last major prediction and focus for most end of the world prediction scenarios. 2013 should have some wake up for the planet that “it ain’t’ that bad” and maybe we can accomplish things again instead of living in a state of panic.

Until then.... Hold on to your seat!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 237
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/20/2011 12:33:42 PM

Why would someone who does not agree with AGW invent a solution to a nonexistent problem? You have not thought this though have you


? I don't mind if you don't understand. It doesn't hurt my feelings. I think it is fine to accept that there is environmental impact from everything we are doing on the planet. It is a closed system.

I'm not getting off on proving people wrong. I had a basic point that, ok, I can accept that climate impact is valid. However, I do not see any actual solutions being presented and the current level of activism is equal to religious apocalyptic doom. The data and the numbers do not show cataclysm in the near future.

So, bury the world in all the facts. By next year it will be old news and tired and no one will care anymore because another year passed without going up in smoke. Patience is a virtue for a reason.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 238
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/20/2011 4:03:06 PM
disingenuous at best and and an outright lie at worst


I do not assume that everyone is without regard or conscience. If you let the people who do not agree go free to do research that they do believe in they will be more successful. Maybe one of those people could actually stumble across the solution.

A lot of our technical achievements were accidents and not what they were intended on. However, with the current dogma around climate science there is more funding and acceptance in the agreement.


I am not trying to mislead anyone.

VVVVVV I did. I watched the first half the other night. Have not reached the parts with all of the scrubbers yet. I'm sure gloom and doom will come destroying his conclusions some time soon.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 239
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/20/2011 4:13:10 PM

This cycle is very much the same as an aquarium. In an aquarium the ammonia byproduct of waste is oxidized by bacteria. The balance can be quite difficult to achieve. However, in an aquarium you have the ability to change and refresh the water to keep the levels under control. If you dig through the substrate you interrupt the bacteria and can quickly lead to an excess of ammonia and very unhappy fish.

That is true, but to think that we have not changed and are still changing the oceans by over farming it would be a fail at biology.

Man has and is continuing to remove the top predator in the ocean, with that we see drastic affects on the food chain as species that would normally have been food for the sharks are able to reproduce at greater numbers thus consuming more phytoplanktons and ergo the ocean produces less oxygen and all animals or plants that do not adapt fail will cease to exist.

Will the earth remain the same if we where not here? No, it is a living thing and because of that change will always occur.

Are humans doing things that are changing the climate? Yes.

Are there people that will use this to their advantage by creating doomsday scenario? Why not it has been mans MO since he started speaking.


What can we really do that is both practical and would actually make a difference? I do not have the answers but:

Bjørn Lomborg seems to have some good ideas, although you may not have heard of him over the noise created by retards like Gore.

Watch:

Cool It
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1694015/
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 240
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/20/2011 5:04:52 PM
We are probably doing far more harm with allegedly "green" projects than with CO2, but that rarely seems to get a mention and its actually on the increase rather than decreasing

Damming rivers for hydro electric water being a very good example thats turning vast areas of the planet into deserts or dust bowls and killing off the majority of the animal and plantlife down stream of the dams as wells as causing the oceans to rise, water tables and aquafers to dry up and meaning there will be less cloud cover or rainfall over land masses

Yet how often does that feature in the apocalyptic doom and gloom rhetoric and wheres the international panel for stopping dams?

Silly me, you cant tax people for having dams can you

 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 241
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 7:40:07 AM

^^ read it - understand it - the electromagnetic backbone of the planet is changing causing changes in global weather patterns - it is not man made - get used to it.

Where is the evidence that not only supports your cause/effect conclusion but also simultaneously excludes any man made contribution?
Providing a logical and coherent argument that supports your conclusions, usually backed up by research and evidence, is basic science - get used to it.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 242
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 9:55:06 AM

I'm not getting off on proving people wrong. I had a basic point that, ok, I can accept that climate impact is valid. However, I do not see any actual solutions being presented and the current level of activism is equal to religious apocalyptic doom. The data and the numbers do not show cataclysm in the near future.


Aries, you seem to come to this issue from an essentially rational point of view, but yet you get distracted by extremist positions and don't seem to have a strong grasp of the difference between headlines and science.

I would suggest that we equally reject those who forecast imminent catastrophe and those who assert there is some devious socialist plot behind the AGW movement. On any issue there will always be fanatics on the fringe. Let's toss those out and focus on the middle.

And that's where real science comes in. You suggested earlier that we let scientists do their thing. They have been. And their overwhelming conclusion is that human activity plays a significant role in a warming planet. Consult any national academy of science, any national science organization with any connection to the climate, and they ALL, each and every one of them, support that conclusion, based on thousands of independent studies and peer reviewed research.

No, that doesn't mean the world will cease to exist, or that we'll all go up in flames. No credible scientist suggests such a thing. It does mean that in the decades to come, not this year or next, there will be major changes in ecosystems and how we humans live on the planet. Some of those are predictable, like rising oceans, some not as easy to predict, like exactly which species will go extinct when.

And no, this won't be old news next year. It first showed up on my personal radar twenty years ago, and has steadily increased since. The international debate is NOT whether or not humans have an impact, but how best to minimize those impacts.

Which brings us to actual solutions. They are being implemented as we speak. That's why there have been major reforestation efforts around the globe. Why African nations are being subsidized to develop renewable energy sources. Why energy efficiency efforts keep gaining traction, and alternative energy options continue to be aggressively pursued with considerable research funds going into new alternatives. Hundreds of cities in the US have joined an effort to shrink their carbon footprint.

While armchair scientists spin their wheels fussing in forums like these, policy makers are getting to work. Not as quickly and extensively as many of us would like, but the trend continues to take global warming seriously and do what we can both to minimize it and adapt to it.

Patience is indeed a virtue. So is persistence. We won't do as much as future generations will wish we had, but we are taking action, and it's a shame we keep getting bogged down in silly debates over well established science.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 243
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 11:41:09 AM
wvwaterfall

Thank you very much for not bashing. It is appreciated.

I think you are basically saying what I was trying to say. Things are ok right now. I had suggested earlier that current regulations have actually helped stabilize growth of emissions output for quite some time now. I am not saying they stopped growth. Just stabilized it. The Google graphs show that. Retaining stability at our current levels is a decent achievement. It didn't happen recently. It has been going on nearly 30 years. It has only recently turned mainstream apocalyptic and that could likely be orgined with Al Gore as having the most impact.

That apocalyptic assertion will likely have a negative impact on progress as the rush wears off.
http://goo.gl/5TmTu


Rise of the climate change sceptics: More than a third of people now think global warming claims are exaggerated


A simple Google news search for this week shows it in the headlines. You are correct. The attention grabbing headlines are distracting. But they are also meant to grab the attention of people. That means they use wording that is believed to have current relevance with people. I added CO2 into the search and found the results fit better with this thread.
Ignoring the content and looking at the headlines
Pro headlines use: Fight, Risks, Fear, Scary, Warnings, denialism, and Failure
Anti headlines use: Hoax, Skeptics, Unconvinced.

http://goo.gl/NUXl7

"Scientists focus on methane, permafrost in fight against global ..."
"As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks? "
"Scientists fear permafrost thaw could compound global warming? "
"Permafrost thaw — just how scary is it?? "
"Letter: Global warming warnings prove too conservative"
"Evidence shows that man-made global warming is a hoax:
"Global-warming skeptics in tidal Virginia"
"A Cleantech VC Unconvinced of Man-made Climate Change"
"GLOBAL WARMING: Heads in the sand? "
"Durban consensus: funding climate affectees? "
"Time running out on global warming? "
"NASA: Warming will transform natural world"
"Warming denialism is in the political eye of the beholder"
"Cop 17: Countries admit failure to limit global warming"

People cannot live in heighted emotional states for long periods of time. They will either turn away from the entire debate or just retain a small halfhearted support. It seems like a natural outcome that support for climate change will lose public support over time and not gain or retain if this language continues. The biggest problem now faced is that if the language loses the apocalyptic tone, I feel, support would plummet because that would make it seem like it was all a lie to drum up support. So, this is what happens when a debate goes activist and extreme. Hopefully it will settle into a more central position and the extremes on both sides will die down and we can start hearing about the progress that has been made rather than our ultimate doom.

And why am I the only one that finds it fascinating that all of this stuff comes up to a boil in 2012. The US elections alone are going to send people to mental hospitals :) If we have another round of earthquakes, volcanoes and natural disasters as we did last year the climate extremists will be in danger of their heads exploding :)
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 244
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 1:33:32 PM
still no actual science except one link that agreed with AGW

Actually it’s because of you that I think it’s all made up by socialist liberals bent on destroying freedom. :) My opinion. Thanks for all the fish
.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwcve6mva61qzrlhgo1_400.gif
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 245
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 2:31:40 PM

Actually, can someone find me a respected AGW-denier climate-ologist who isn't burdened by the bias of presuppositional apologetics or financial connections to the oil industry?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Feel free to vet the list. I'm not going to.

My point keeps being that... NOT DENYING IT!!!!! but get off my lawn. Stop shoving it down my throat. I will hate you! :) Not personally. Only for effect :) I like your posts.

I don't claim to have the answers. I'm not a climate scientist. Just because of the level of attacks if you question the conclusions is right up there with telling a Christian fanatic that other religions exist. After having a few experiences like that the best course of action is to just avoid them. However, that wouldn't stop me from having my own thoughts. Much to the dismay of others.

edit:
VVVVVVVVVV But you didn't post a link to the actual research paper proving your claims along with the supporting verifications and financial disclosures. Also, you have not validated your own personal qualifications verifying your legitimacy to make statements on this matter. :)
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 246
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 2:40:33 PM
It is absolutely true that there is global warming. We know this from the ice age cycle. We can expect from this cycle alone about another 30K years of warming, followed by 50K years of subsequent cooling. Its been repeated many times in the geologic record.

All life affects the climate, including human life. Even if all human life expired tomorrow, global warming would continue. The only issue is whether human activities are accelerating global warming, or impeding global warming. There is no evidence that humans cause global warming, and none that humans can arrest it.

As for taxation, it can only exist in a situation where there are humans with money to extract, and if you don't want to apply a flat rate system, you need something measurable and variable to implement a tax system. There is no proposal to tax methane emissions, for example, because there is no immediate way to monitor the discharge from animal husbandry. Carbon, however, is easy, because the fuel markets are highly organized and controlled. Governments will apply taxes to carbon if enough people believe the CO2 story politicized by the climate doomsayers. Whether taxing carbon will do anything to change the future climate is a moot point. Its certainly true that making carbon unaffordable would cut off all use in favour of some alternatives (Hydrogen economies, Nuclear economies). Of course, once taxing carbon becomes a significant source of government revenue, the level of taxation will be carefully managed to prevent a flight from carbon use. Governments will need the money to much to forgo the money, regardless of the science or the predicted effects of continued carbon use.

Ultimately, population growth will guarantee the rise in carbon use, whatever the policies adopted. Until something cuts of population growth, the world will need more CO2 so that the food required to feed the growing population can be grown. Global warming will make more areas suitable for food production for longer periods. The driving forces behind population are not in the developed world. In the high tech economies, we will all be driving electric cars, living in super-insulated housing, using CFL lighting and heating with geothermal heat pumps. Our birth rate will be below replacement levels, and we will used less and less carbon taxed a progressively higher rates.

The rest of the world will produce more and more CO2, will not pay taxes (they don't have the money!) and will continue to reproduce like mad (they don't have pensions!).

So, whatever you believe about AGW, it matters not. There are many factors influencing
environmental measurements over the last century, and a lot of politics involved in even collecting data on the climate. The "Science is settled" gang don't really believe that, because if they did, there would be no further need for research, and they depend on the flow of money for their jobs. If they were completely honest, they would all have quit climate science and looked into curing cancer. No, they hit up the NSF for increasing millions every year, to look into "completely settled" matters like CO2.

In recorded human history, it is known that oceans are steadily rising, glaciers are in steady retreat, and being a ski hill operator in Vermont gets more iffy every year. The only effect on these things of carbon policy will be that you have less cash in your pocket, while the tax man will have more of your cash.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 247
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 3:08:22 PM
Sorry, Irregulator. I must say I do seem to suck at clarity sometimes. None of what you listed above was targeted at you. Only the list that I think you were asking for.

The part below the EDIT was a mock argument against the post below mine and only mock. In no way meant to direct at you or even to discount the person below me whose post I also liked.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 248
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 3:47:08 PM

I think you are basically saying what I was trying to say. Things are ok right now.


No, they're not. We've had five years of record low ice packs in the arctic. Ocean acidification is increasing at an alarming rate, threatening reefs and shellfish. European wine growers are making contingency plans to move entire vineyards up mountains to preserve their growing seasons. They can only go up so far.

But it is true that the major problems are most likely decades away. That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about them. And that's the problem. We're a pretty intelligent species, but essentially crisis motivated, and for most people this is not an imminent crisis. Future generations will curse us for not taking action sooner when we had ample science to show us what we were handing them, but we're just not wired to make decisions that extend beyond the next quarterly statement or election cycle.



And why am I the only one that finds it fascinating that all of this stuff comes up to a boil in 2012.


What makes you think it's coming to a boil now? For those of us who actually follow the science on this, there has been a steady progression of new information for the past two decades, with no great "aha" moments, just more and more research refining what we already knew then.

The media coverage waxes and wanes, and frankly I haven't seen a lot of it this past year. The recent Durbin climate talks only got passing attention. The greatest media coverage happened right after Hurricane Katrina, which was silly since the impact of global warming on hurricanes is one of the least well understood aspects and regardless it was certainly way too soon to expect a dramatic increase in hurricane frequency or intensity. Some scientists mentioned that one possible consequence of FUTURE warming MIGHT be more frequent hurricanes like Katrina, and the media took that and ran with it, while pretty much ignoring far more certain predictions.

There was also a lot of hoopla about Al Gore's movie, which simply regurgitated what was already common knowledge among those following the science, albeit including an error or two that got blown way out of proportion. I went to that movie with notepad in hand, ready to add to my knowledge base, and came away with no notes, as I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.

And there was a lot of coverage of the 'climategate' debacle, with far less coverage of the three independent studies demonstrating that nothing in those leaked emails in any way negated the scientific consensus on AGW.

So I don't see any particular coming to a boil happening. Fickle as we are, if there's a major heat wave climate science will suddenly become newsworthy. If there's a blizzard or two there will be plenty of snide remarks, even though the greatest snowfalls happen when winter temps are moderate, not cold. No particular heat wave or cold snap means much of anything, of course. It's the global average that counts, and at any given time you can find record highs and lows happening somewhere or another.

I subscribe to several environmental list serves, and several times a week there's new research shared on climate change. It's been that way for many, many years, with no increase recently. Most of it gets ignored by mainstream media. That doesn't make it any less valid.

But as I noted, all sorts of governments and corporate interests are taking action. Not only is the science sound, but it just makes good sense. A cleaner environment benefits us all. Being more efficient with energy use saves money. We're not making more fossil fuel, so sooner or later we'll have to transition to completely renewable energy. Might as well take advantage of opportunities now.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 249
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 4:25:26 PM
Cool,

So I shouldn't worry about this right?
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012


Whew... almost ran for the hills to live in a cave.

Thankfully we also have these people to help make sure we know which way is up:
http://goo.gl/bbSxT

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science


Ok, there is a lot of crap out there. US just tanked the latest climate conference. Must be the oil companies running the world again...

Then a few minutes ago http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/10/21/the-great-green-energy-crack-up/


A study just came out today on the health costs of what they call “fuel poverty”, commissioned by the Energy and Climate Change Secretary (don’t we need one of those?), Chris Huhne. Bottom line: the chill from green taxes is now killing more Brits per year than car crashes.


I do say that conviction to a cause is admirable. Will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next 100 years.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 250
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/21/2011 5:47:54 PM
So I shouldn't worry about this right?
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012


Whew... almost ran for the hills to live in a cave.

Thankfully we also have these people to help make sure we know which way is up:
http://goo.gl/bbSxT

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science


You can comfortably reject both headlines as fitting the extremist categories I mentioned earlier, but you could use both as impetus for doing further research, taking care to differentiate between talking head opinions and actual peer reviewed research, which is the core of good science.

The primary focus of the first piece is the concern over methane, which has been around for quite some time, not mere weeks as this article asserts. Eight years ago I gave a presentation to the state coal association on methane as a greenhouse gas, as they were contemplating the potential of getting carbon credits for capturing coal bed methane that is normally released into the atmosphere. Most of the information in that piece was common knowledge then.

What's somewhat newer is the discovery that long known deep sea methane hydrates, which under pressure and cold temps are a solid, are bubbling to the surface in large quantities in at least some parts of the arctic. How much of this is happening is currently being studied.

Methane is a greenhouse gas, about twenty times more potent per molecule than CO2. That's been known for a long time. The theory that thawing permafrost and peat bogs could accelerate warming has also been around for quite a while, but where this piece departs from mainstream science is leaping to the conclusion that a huge amount of methane release will happen this year, with an even greater leap that it will result in billions of human fatalities. They just kind of tossed in that projection the headline was based on at the end of the article, with virtually no support.

As for the second piece, right off the bat I'm skeptical of a blogger who is himself a long time skeptic who subscribes to the "it's all a government conspiracy to tax us more" philosophy. I know nothing of the scientist in question, but gather that he played more of a support role than leading independent research. Lindzen, who is also cited, is one of the few skeptic scientists who actually DOES do his own research, even if much of it has been found lacking through the peer review process. The primary thrust of the piece was a contention that all models based their conclusion on the same flawed assumptions about the role of moisture in the atmosphere, and that's just flat out false.

Hundreds of models are used to project climate change impacts, and quite intentionally many of them operate from different assumptions than others. Pretty much all of them are also checked against known results. Climate change theory does NOT hinge on a single assumption. You can't shoot it down with a single pinprick of the theoretical balloon. A lot of research has gone into and continues to go into the role of water vapor at various elevations. Sure some data doesn't match predictions, but as a consequence models have been tweaked to incorporate new data.

As for the forbes link, Pat Michaels has been outspoken skeptic for many years now. His main thrust in this piece seems to be that taking care of the environment is a luxury we can only afford when times are good. I'd argue that by that logic, so is pretty much everything else. There is nothing more essential to survival than a livable environment. Sure, it can take a certain amount of abuse, but as multiple failed civilizations learned the hard way, if you abuse it too much you've got nothing left to feed you.

I spent a bit of time trying to track down his cited study indicating more fatalities from energy poverty than car crashes and couldn't find it. Let me know if you do.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures