Climategate

[steelish]

Global leaders have been meeting on the subject of Global Warming...aka Climate Change.

Here is my theory/belief:
This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way. I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle. I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.

Where do YOU stand on this issue?

[Thorne]

This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way.
I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.


I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle.
The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.


I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.
I agree with you here. In fact, virtually any government sponsored and controlled "fix" is probably a bad idea. Any time you have politicians and industrialists climbing into bed together, you know that they are NOT the one's who will get screwed.

[Wiscoman]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it (http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085) for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[steelish]

I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.


What's the evidence? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I've never seen/heard concrete evidence proving anything one way or another



The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.


The future has ALWAYS been just around the corner. In the late 70s, they claimed the next Ice Age was coming...DANGER, DANGER! (it didn't happen) Then they said the planet would be destroyed through Global Warming within the next 10 years (it didn't happen). Now, we're being told that the polar ice caps will be completely gone by 2021 (or something like that) if we don't do something NOW...DANGER, DANGER! Sorry, I just don't buy into it.

[steelish]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.


I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.


Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.


Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.


On cap and trade, we already do it (http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085) for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.


It's easy to find both pros and cons (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/03/12/cap-and-trade-primer-eight-reasons-why-cap-and-trade-harms-the-economy-and-reduces-jobs/)

[Thorne]

What's the evidence? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I've never seen/heard concrete evidence proving anything one way or another
The evidence is there, in thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the kinds of things that denialists, and journalists, don't like to talk about. I'm not saying there isn't still some element of doubt, but the more I see, the less doubtful I've become.


The future has ALWAYS been just around the corner. In the late 70s, they claimed the next Ice Age was coming...DANGER, DANGER! (it didn't happen) Then they said the planet would be destroyed through Global Warming within the next 10 years (it didn't happen). Now, we're being told that the polar ice caps will be completely gone by 2021 (or something like that) if we don't do something NOW...DANGER, DANGER! Sorry, I just don't buy into it.
Most of the information you're referring to did NOT come from scientists, but from the media, who condensed, consolidated and confabulated the information to make a more sensational story. Back in the 70's some scientists determined that there appeared to be periodicity in the cycle of Earth's ice ages, and that we were heading towards a new ice age, in a couple of thousand years. That's NOT how the story was reported. Likewise, no reputable scientist ever claimed that the planet would be destroyed through global warming. Habitats will change, species will be stressed, some to the point of extinction, ocean levels will rise. In short, things will go on pretty much as they have been for the last 4 billion years. The problem is, it's OUR habitat that will change, OUR species which will be stressed, OUR homes destroyed in the rising tides.

It's quite possible that the Arctic Ice Cap will disappear, during the summers, well before 2021. <shrug> It's happened before, even without our help. It will reconstitute during winter, just as always, just not so thick. It's doubtful that Antarctica will thaw by 2021, though. That's one HELL of a lot of ice! It may melt, along with the Greenland Ice Cap, by 2100. That will be a problem, for sure. All that extra water, pouring into the oceans. Well, at least it will help to dilute the carbolic acid accumulating from all the excess CO2 absorption.

No, there's no doubt now that the Earth is warming. There's little doubt that mankind is making the problem worse, even if we're not the primary cause. But there's also little likelihood that the worst-case scenarios, the ones the media love to blast all over the airwaves, will come to pass.

[steelish]

The evidence is there, in thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the kinds of things that denialists, and journalists, don't like to talk about. I'm not saying there isn't still some element of doubt, but the more I see, the less doubtful I've become.

like this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4CJCVJ8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1141038410&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=620b97b38286153efadb83616f851d6d) one? Or maybe these (http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html)?



There's little doubt that mankind is making the problem worse, even if we're not the primary cause. But there's also little likelihood that the worst-case scenarios, the ones the media love to blast all over the airwaves, will come to pass.

EXACTLY

[Ozme52]

I agree steelish... the Vikings (with inifinite humor?) named a northern island Greenland, settled there, and also settled in the then balmy climes of Newfoundland.

It's been warmer, it's been colder. We've been keeping close track all of what, 200 years?

The Sahara was lusher when it was warmer and less water trapped in the icecaps. Even some 2300 years ago. Remember Carthage? (Well probably not, thanks to the Romans. ;) Who says violence doesn't solve anything?...) Well, they were every bit as powerful and prosperous, in the Sahara. It was a different climate.

Remember that neolithic "Iceman" recently uncovered by a retreating glacier, who fell and died in the Alps... wearing relatively mild weather garb? He was far far higher than need be unless the climate offered opportunity based resources.

And the dinosaurs must have been farting a lot of greenhouse gases back in their time.

Remember Krakatoa? Vesuvius? Mt. St. Helens? A volcano can pour far more tonnage into the air in mere moments than can humanity despite all our efforts. Remember the Dark Ages? Many historians now believe it really meant dark ages. When the amount of light getting through the volcanic dust clouds sent into the air was reduced in the northern hemisphere. I can see it now, a really big volcano goes off, reducing captured heat, and we have to shut off all the CO2 scrubbers to help keep greenhouse gases high to retain more heat.

All that said, do we have an impact? Of course we do, but we are neither the cause nor the solution. Can we do some things to mitigate the impact? Of course we can and should. Are there things we should be doing for other reasons, (like getting off of foreign oil,) that we are promoting as a cure for global warming? Yes, we should, so I don't have an issue with many of the conference's goals...

But mostly I think it is our very hubris that somehow we are to blame that will get us in trouble again later, when the sun cools again, or we miss an opportunity because we're blinded by our own conceit.

[VaAugusta]

Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.

[Wiscoman]

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.


Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.


It's easy to find both pros and cons (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/03/12/cap-and-trade-primer-eight-reasons-why-cap-and-trade-harms-the-economy-and-reduces-jobs/)

It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here (http://www.gaggiftsrus.com/Smiles/positive_proof_of_global_warming.jpg) :cool:

[Lion]

I'm in the Climate change is caused by humans camp. But I know I don't know about the whole thing, as with almost most of the people I've talked to (and political talk show hosts and politicians). I'd rather hear what scientists have to say about the matter then some governor tbh.

But screw the earth, be selfish and look as far as the confines of your city, and there is still good reasons to start reducing emitions. Thankfully I haven't been to a city in North America with high pollution levels, but the population needs to be proactive on energy waste.

I've lived for a few months in Karachi. The smell in the air is disgusting, there is so much man made pollution from cars, factories, power plants. Buildings darken because of the smog, your white shirt will get dusty after just a short time wearing it, and the health problems are numerous.

This problem isn't isolated to third world nations. An article recently noted the air pollution in Hong Kong, it became bad enough that a haze seems to appear over the skyline, when a few years ago, this was not an issue.

LA is another example of a city plagued with air pollution.


So while you don't care about climate change, or think it's a naturally occuring phenomenon, at least realise that in the local level, we collectively need to address how to reduce emissions. Cities like Karachi and Hong Kong didn't have this issue 50 years ago, humans can affect their immediate environment that quickly

[IAN 2411]

I saw a National Geographic documentary about two years ago that changed my way of thinking on this so called greenhouse gasses. There were two scientists working in very different areas of science, and if it had not been through a chance meeting the climate change would never have been made clearer.

One scientist was working in Greenland, he was boring holes deep into the ground, and he was extracting information about life before mankind as we know it. He was boring I believe some one hundred metres, and he found not just one ice age but many, and his theory was that parts of the earth were in for another, and possibly in the next ten to twenty years. To be precise the good old UK and I am happy to say for once the Europeans get what we get and that is cold.

Now the other scientist was an oceanographer, and he was doing tests in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. He found that the Gulf Stream was slowing down, and it was already slower by 30% than when records were first taken. There is a cycle that is called the conveyer belt, and when the warm waters reach Newfoundland the heavy salt water turns the current East. Then it turns and goes back south touching the western edge of Europe, and that helps to give Europe and especially the UK its warm weather. Due to heavy rainfall over the past ten to twenty years in northern Europe, a lot of fresh water has flowed north, and that has diluted the heavy salt content south of Newfoundland. This is causing a lot of the warm water to escape north and thus slowing the conveyer belt. If at all the conveyer belt stops North American weather will change, and so too will Europe’s weather. The UK is on the same Parallel as Canada and the Gulf of Alaska, it will not be an ice age as such, but you can believe it will be cold and Alaskan weather.


The Gulf Stream, together with its northern extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, is a powerful, warm, and swift Atlantic ocean current that originates in the Gulf of Mexico, exits through the Strait of Florida, and follows the eastern coastlines of the United States and Newfoundland before crossing the Atlantic Ocean. The process of western intensification causes the Gulf Stream to be a northward accelerating current offshore the east coast of North America. At about 30°W, 40°N, it splits in two, with the northern stream crossing to northern Europe and the southern stream recirculating off West Africa. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be; and that this is due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It is part of the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Its presence has led to the development of strong cyclones of all types, both within the atmosphere and within the ocean. The Gulf Stream is also a significant potential source of renewable power generation.


To sum up is it due to mankind? Well I very much doubt it, and I think it is probably just another chapter in the Earths cycle. If it gets cold we will survive because man can create a warm environment, it is evolution and you cannot stop that, we are not dinosaurs. There are too many natural releases of gasses and smoke emissions for the Earth to compete with. Remember if both sides of the Atlantic are frozen then there will be hardly any fresh water diluting the south of Newfoundland, the Gulf Stream starts flowing again, and just like it did thousands of years ago. Job done and it will be another climate change, and no doubt by then someone will be complaining that the ice is melting. FULL CIRCLE.

Regards ian

[SadisticNature]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[Midnytedreams]

Just recently the Scientific research that has been progress since 1970 by the U.N has found to have been tampered with. If you want to know the truth follow the money, those estimates in your links are now outdated the recent figure in in the trillions. Who is to get the money world wide but the same companies that pollute the most

In 1980 the government of United States gave billions for developement of clean energy
The EV1 an electrical car was made, it was not polluting, you could only lease them not buy them. Why becuase as soon as the government money stopped . All the cars were seized by the company and destroyed.

You can get a patent for anything from the government , even an idea or program, but try to get a patent on a self substaining vehicle {needing no out side power source} and the doors close. The technology is already there it has been since the 1980, Why is it not used because of power.

The same delegates and scientists who started the global warming scare in the 1970s now have the power, the secound suggestion they made at the conference was a world bank. one currency. Look at Europe now ...one currency... and they {the people in power in government}are now discussing the same for the united states.

The man standing on the street yelling, the world is coming to an end, wearing rags.
Has been replaced by the man in the 2000 dollar suit and private airplane stating it.

Ask yourself this the world is a huge place, of all the places , why was the middle east the cradle of civilization, simple because, at one time it was lush and fertile not sand, this happened way before automobiles and plants spi lling toxins into the air.

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

here is a site you might want to check out

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

[SadisticNature]

The evidence is that the climate is changing.

That doesn't give anyone the right to on no evidence at all pick their own reason and require everyone to back it.

Ask yourself this, if the middle east was the cradle of civilization because long ago the climate was cooler and it was lush and more fertile, what caused the heating long before the introduction of all these gasses? Why has the reason suddenly changed?

Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

[Wiscoman]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Only on one side, unfortunately.


Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.


Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

I did. Not a fact (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080129-baffin-ice.html).


Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

A-freakin'-men.


Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

No argument there.


Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html).


Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.


Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[IAN 2411]

The evidence is that the climate is changing.



Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

It is a fact that Europe and the Uk have been getting colder over the last ten years. Forget about the few burning hot summers, records show that there was the same red hot summers in the late ninteen forties. I never said that the ice age that i was speaking about would only take 10 - 20 years, I said that it was a possibility in that amount of time. The Gulf Stream has been slowing down over many years, the records were stating that if the Gulf stream kept on slowing at the same speed it would stop in 10 - 20 years, and neither did i say a global ice age. Basic geograph, an adverse weather condition in one part of the world, will cause adverse weather conditions up to 12,000 miles away, and that is almost half way around the world. Part of my post above was copied and pasted directly from the latest encyclopedia, we in the UK are dependent on the Gulf Steam, and it is a fact and i havent got time to teach you basic geography. If in fact there is global warming, there is more rain, that leads to flooded rivers, the rivers of Europe outlets are in the north. That brings us back to the theory the scientists were talking about, and the fact is the Gulf Stream has slowed down. In stead of trying to score quick points against other post writers, read the posts first and then check the facts.

Regards ian.


Give respect to receive respect

[SadisticNature]

Yes I agree the arctic ice is receding. The ice I was talking about was the antarctic.

As for the other points, I'd like to referred to specific documents. Societies even Scientific ones tend to play politics with a lot of the political statements. There is an awful lot of situations where the evidence isn't enough to conclude something yet and they claim the conclusion anyways, which happens far less in actual papers.

As for there being no evidence at all of us being in a temperature cycle, that is false. The fact is there is evidence that the earth is constantly in a cycle with trend, the problem is we don't have enough information to conclusively state what that trend is, because there is a lot of noise in the data, and we only have a very small time period to look at.

Again, temperature change happens on massive scales, so 10-20 years of data is basically on the level of a blip and isn't really something to take all that seriously, especially when it has notable exceptions.

[Wiscoman]

Yes I agree the arctic ice is receding. The ice I was talking about was the antarctic.

I misread it... Not that I can figure out what difference it makes. Running the search again...

Still not a fact (http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/arcglrec.htm).


As for the other points, I'd like to referred to specific documents. Societies even Scientific ones tend to play politics with a lot of the political statements. There is an awful lot of situations where the evidence isn't enough to conclude something yet and they claim the conclusion anyways, which happens far less in actual papers.

I call foul on that one. You're dismissing evidence you don't like based on your ability to read their collective mind.


As for there being no evidence at all of us being in a temperature cycle, that is false. The fact is there is evidence that the earth is constantly in a cycle with trend, the problem is we don't have enough information to conclusively state what that trend is, because there is a lot of noise in the data, and we only have a very small time period to look at.

Knowing there's a cycle isn't the same as proving we're in a certain point in that cycle. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence the increase in atmospheric CO2 mirrors the increase in temperatures (http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/CO2-Temp.jpg) over the years. I'm sorry, but thinking this is coincidental seems a little unreasonable to me.


Again, temperature change happens on massive scales, so 10-20 years of data is basically on the level of a blip and isn't really something to take all that seriously, especially when it has notable exceptions.

It's over century's worth of data.

[Wiscoman]

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

That's just plain untrue.


2000-09 may be warmest decade on record, U.N. weather agency says (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-climate_09int.ART.State.Edition1.4bb7c38.html)

This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday, the second day of a 192-nation climate conference.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said.

In central Africa and southern Asia, this will probably be the warmest year, but overall, 2009 will be "about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the organization...

[steelish]

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here (http://www.gaggiftsrus.com/Smiles/positive_proof_of_global_warming.jpg) :cool:

lol. No, that's proof positive of puritan attitudes dying out. (Thank God!) ;)

[Lion]

on a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here (http://www.gaggiftsrus.com/smiles/positive_proof_of_global_warming.jpg) :cool:


lol

[denuseri]

There are also scientists saying that the increase in Co2 is cuased by the increasing temperatures and that the true scource of any temperature increases has as yet to be identified; though my bet is on the relationship between the sun and our planets geo-thermal action. Its quite possible a spurious coorelation has been drawn between Co2 and temperature fluctuations.


Outside of that, we have reams of data collected about what the climate did in the past on this planet. Its preserved quite nicely for those wishing to go find it, especially in fosseil records and geological substrates.

Can we as humans influence the enviroment?

We allready have in a multitude of ways, just look at the vast changes in fauna (I use fauna in the definition of biologists in that it includes animals and plants) and terrain features as well as water distribution that took place in North America from our presence.

Have we directly changed the overall atmospheric composition to date as a species on a significant level?

I think science is still colating data, were as those with political agendas are using scare tactics to influence the general populace for their own advantage. (unfortunately it appears as if some scientists in general are not as ethical as they would like us to believe and quite capable of allowing their personal political views to influence their data) As we so recently found out to be true in a few cases. Funny how the politicians instead of crying foul to the scientists in question and holding them up to public scrutiny are instead crying foul on the whistler blower who uncovered their transgressions.

But as Lion mentioned, there is still no reason whatsoever that we shouldnt take our responsiblity for the planet as its dominant species very very seriously.

After all its not like we are in a position to get up just yet and row row our boat to a different island.

[Thorne]

There are also scientists saying that the increase in Co2 is cuased by the increasing temperatures and that the true scource of any temperature increases has as yet to be identified; though my bet is on the relationship between the sun and our planets geo-thermal action.
Sorry, that's just wrong. The link between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming is solid. In fact, there is little evidence that there is any link between the sun and geo-thermal action. Aside from electromagnetic radiation from the sun, only tidal effects are felt on Earth, and the moon has a larger effect than the sun. And while tidal effects cause friction, which causes heat, these factors are relatively constant and cannot be causing current global warming.


Outside of that, we have reams of data collected about what the climate did in the past on this planet. Its preserved quite nicely for those wishing to go find it, especially in fosseil records and geological substrates.
Exactly! And the data shows that the average global temperature and the average CO2 content of the atmosphere are rising at a higher rate than ever before.


Have we directly changed the overall atmospheric composition to date as a species on a significant level?
Yes, we have. Think smog. Think acid rain. Think nuclear fallout, from Alamogordo to Chernobyl.


I think science is still colating data, were as those with political agendas are using scare tactics to influence the general populace for their own advantage.
This is also true. Science will ALWAYS be collating data. That's what scientists do! That doesn't mean there isn't enough data now to define a trend. But political scare tactics are being used, as well as pressure on those who MAY have evidence which contradicts SOME of the science.


Funny how the politicians instead of crying foul to the scientists in question and holding them up to public scrutiny are instead crying foul on the whistler blower who uncovered their transgressions.
This was not a whistle-blower, this was a hacker. He illegally stole e-documents which did not belong to him. He should be arrested and prosecuted as a criminal. And the "transgressions" are a few phrases which have been taken out of context and blown up into a vast conspiracy. It's a tempest in a teapot.

[steelish]

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

[IAN 2411]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

[steelish]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist. So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

[Wiscoman]

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[Wiscoman]

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Which does nothing to prove this is the result of a cycle.


Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist.

What's this have to do with something that's cyclical? If it happened before and it's a cycle, it'll happen again. Otherwise, it's not a cycle, is it?


So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

No, we don't know that at all. Albert Einstein once said, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Taken out of context -- as I just did -- this would seem to suggest quite a bit of dishonesty on his part. Clearly, this debunks his theories. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be happy to know that they were attacked by a wild theory that is now debunked.

[IAN 2411]

Wiscoman, with respect read about earth cycle.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en-GBGB354GB354&q=earth+cycles+global+warming

Regards ian

[Wiscoman]

Ian, I've got to ask the most obvious question here; so what?

No one's arguing that there isn't some cycle, but no one seems to be able to bring any credible evidence at all that the current warming is a result of that cycle.

As I said before, a cyclical climate is a fact in search of context.

[Seroquel]

The best thing to do is to ignore what the government and newspapers say the scientific evidence is and go straight to relevant journals. If you're interested in the subject then Environmental Chemistry would be a good place to start but to my knowledge the vast majority of scientists who specifically study the climate do think that human activity is having a significant effect on the levels of things like carbon dioxide.

Personally I don't think there's any argument that we're producing far too much carbon dioxide, virtually everything we do produces it including breathe. Whether or not that translates into global warming I don't know, I certainly don't think it's doing any good.

[Midnytedreams]

As I said before follow the money exert from 2009 coppenhagen conference

Climate politics is a numbers game: its about temperatures, emissions, and allowances. But the most important numbers are possibly the ones preceded by dollar or Euro signs.



“Money is even more important now the parties are coming up with only a political statement not a legally binding agreement,” says David McCauley, Principal Climate Change Specialist, Asian Development Bank.



Political statements won’t reduce emissions; cash will. So said South Africa the day before the Copenhagen talks began. It offered to cut carbon emissions to 34 percent below expected levels by 2020, but only if the rich world provided money to help.



The president of the African Development Bank, Donald Kaberuka, said he wanted 40 billion dollars a year from rich countries “to enable low-income countries to adapt.”



These statements crystallize the money matters at the heart of climate politics.



-Will the rich pay the poor to go green?

-Will the rich compensate the poor for wrecking their environment?

[Midnytedreams]

Guess who is the primary stockholder of these banks Laroushe, the man who in 1970 started the whole thing when he headed the UN task force.

[DuncanONeil]

Well! This is a volatile issue. There has been;

1. evidence that the planet has been getting warmer, but
2. in the 70s there was ample evidence it was getting cooler. And
3. the last twelve years have evidence that the planet is getting cooler.
How do the proponents of Man-caused Global Warming react to this evidence. For evidence set one the followers of Gore cite this as proof that we have screwed up the planet. For evidence set two the Goreites simply state that data collection is more accurate now. For data set three the data is irrelevant.
Then there is the evidence of the countries following Kyoto having increased their CO2, while the US not following has reduced theirs! That is hailed as fiction. Yet the guess by some body of people that doing nothing will cost 28 trillion per year.
What happens if the Goreites get their way and there is a wholesale reduction in CO2? Where does our O2 come from then? And who is to decide what the proper temperature is for this planet? And what if they pick the wrong one?


Global leaders have been meeting on the subject of Global Warming...aka Climate Change.

Here is my theory/belief:
This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way. I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle. I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.

Where do YOU stand on this issue?

[DuncanONeil]

And all of the scenarios presented to us as factual are all the worst case scenario! What are the others? And how often in the test does the worst case show up? But then again we are not permitted to see the data and run independant tests on said data.


I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.


The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.


I agree with you here. In fact, virtually any government sponsored and controlled "fix" is probably a bad idea. Any time you have politicians and industrialists climbing into bed together, you know that they are NOT the one's who will get screwed.

[Seroquel]

When the worst case scenario is "We all die" don't you think it's worth considering?

[DuncanONeil]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!
It is clear that the planet has gone through cycles like this before and that such cycles could not have been caused as Goreites believe by little ole us. Also there is no real compelling evidence that we are the cause either. In this decade it was reported that an error had been made and the hottest year on record was 1934. Yet now the data for this decade does nothing but increase each year, defying the logic of natural events. And in contrast to the actual temperatures that have been declining. Cows pump millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere, as do trees. In fact every living thing adds its share toi the environment. Who are we to claim that intimate knowledge of such an organism is ours to know, when we do not even know all the parts of said organism!


A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it (http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085) for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[Lion]

This thread sounds like the commentators of Fox News and NBC going against each other.

[Ozme52]

Whoever claimed "we all die" was the worst case scenario. That's really over the top.

In fact, those most at risk early on have the most to gain. Instead of concentrating on somehow reversing the trends (which I'll say again are not unusual historically, even within the history of mankind since we began writing it down,) why not build floating cities to replace the island and coastal regions at risk. And, as I implied, we might find the great deserts becoming lush again, and if not, we have the technology to bring the water to the deserts. (Even in this country, with the Columbia spilling millions of gallons of fresh water into the pacific every minute, we could certainly divert a million an hour to southern California.) Costly, but less so than a futile battle (imo) against a natural cycle, even if we are making it happen faster.

[Midnytedreams]

A reason the summit failed,questions asked



How do you explain that during the past 400 million years of earth history CO2 levels were SEVERAL TIMES higher than today and the planet was actually more hospitable to life?

How do you explain the years 1945-1975 cooling in spite of a four fold increase in our CO2 emissions?

How do you explain the current cooling trend since 1998?

Fact is, solar scientists have been getting surprises about the sun's output. And since one of the major forceing of our temp is from the sun, there is NO WAY that these super computer models can predict what the future will be.

[DuncanONeil]

Getting off foreign oil? Does that mean we can use our own?

[Ozme52]

And who is to decide what the proper temperature is for this planet? And what if they pick the wrong one?

My point exactly. If not for global cooling, the western hemisphere would probably be speaking Norse.

[DuncanONeil]

And what do we do when the changes necessary to meet the imposed requirements of CO2 reduction make it impossible to live where we do, accomplish our work, feed even our own people, or support a planet of 6 billion?


Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.

[Lion]

And what do we do when the changes necessary to meet the imposed requirements of CO2 reduction make it impossible to live where we do, accomplish our work, feed even our own people, or support a planet of 6 billion?

What does CO2 reductions have to do with being unable to live, work and feed ourselves?

Some places have done this successfully. Myth or not (climate change), but being able to live in a more environmentally friendly does not require us to stop eating, or living.

[DuncanONeil]

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!




No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.
Seems that, in spite of data, all the Goreites are capable of say is that "you are wrong!", No refutation, no counter, just the school yard taunt that the side I believe is correct.




It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!


On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here (http://www.gaggiftsrus.com/Smiles/positive_proof_of_global_warming.jpg) :cool:

That is not "proof-positive" of global warming, that is proof-positive of a cooling of morals!

[DuncanONeil]

You pick on Hong Kong as an example. Remember that until recently the place was run by the UK.
You need to understand that there is climate change and man made climate change. It needs to be clear which is spoken of.
If y'all can remember high school science classes that CO2 is supposed to be a gas that traps heat on the planet. If that is the case how can the fact that the planet is radiating more solar gradient radiation into space than can be accounted for that in the recent past?



I'm in the Climate change is caused by humans camp. But I know I don't know about the whole thing, as with almost most of the people I've talked to (and political talk show hosts and politicians). I'd rather hear what scientists have to say about the matter then some governor tbh.

But screw the earth, be selfish and look as far as the confines of your city, and there is still good reasons to start reducing emitions. Thankfully I haven't been to a city in North America with high pollution levels, but the population needs to be proactive on energy waste.

I've lived for a few months in Karachi. The smell in the air is disgusting, there is so much man made pollution from cars, factories, power plants. Buildings darken because of the smog, your white shirt will get dusty after just a short time wearing it, and the health problems are numerous.

This problem isn't isolated to third world nations. An article recently noted the air pollution in Hong Kong, it became bad enough that a haze seems to appear over the skyline, when a few years ago, this was not an issue.

LA is another example of a city plagued with air pollution.


So while you don't care about climate change, or think it's a naturally occuring phenomenon, at least realise that in the local level, we collectively need to address how to reduce emissions. Cities like Karachi and Hong Kong didn't have this issue 50 years ago, humans can affect their immediate environment that quickly

[Midnytedreams]

That is not "proof-positive" of global warming, that is proof-positive of a cooling of morals![/QUOTE]

Have to disagree here those crotchless bloomers look more tempting than the thongs.

[Ozme52]

Getting off foreign oil? Does that mean we can use our own?

Do we need to? ;)

Switch to coal, we have plenty. (I know, it doesn't solve the CO2 issue.) Switch to wind and hydro and solar. Use the electricity to split H2O and burn it as mobile fuel.

Save the oil for petrochemicals.

Grow more plants and trees and recapture the CO2, replenish the O2.
Capture and burn methane for fuel (it does more harm per given quantity than the CO2)

Lots of solutions that will help mitigate greenhouse gases, that would be good for the economy and the environment. I'm not against moving these technologies forward. I'm in favor. I just don't think it will have an impact on the overall climate.

The sun warms this planet's surface and atmosphere. Nothing else has even a percentile of the sun's effect. And the sun's is HUGE. A small change in the sun is all it takes. We're fortunate on this planet to have so much water. The oceans are a huge heat sink. Otherwise these "minor" solar flucuations would have wiped the earth of life a long long time ago.

But given that, we haven't been around long enough (and certainly not keeping records, and even more certainly, not understanding the mechanisms,) to understand, let alone predict, what's coming next.

[Lion]

You pick on Hong Kong as an example. Remember that until recently the place was run by the UK.
You need to understand that there is climate change and man made climate change. It needs to be clear which is spoken of.
If y'all can remember high school science classes that CO2 is supposed to be a gas that traps heat on the planet. If that is the case how can the fact that the planet is radiating more solar gradient radiation into space than can be accounted for that in the recent past?

Can you elaborate please? I don't follow

[Lion]

You 'mericans do you y'all get a lot of your gas from Canada ;)

[DuncanONeil]

And do not forget that the models that are used to predict the future are merely programs written to tinker with the raw data input to produce a result.
We do not know what the tinker rules are, or even the raw data input.
Oh yeah, the US has been reducing CO2 for years, and it seems that we have done a better job than the people that claim to be complying with Kyoto!


It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[DuncanONeil]

But then does the same not also hold true for global warming as global cooling?


The evidence is that the climate is changing.

That doesn't give anyone the right to on no evidence at all pick their own reason and require everyone to back it.

Ask yourself this, if the middle east was the cradle of civilization because long ago the climate was cooler and it was lush and more fertile, what caused the heating long before the introduction of all these gasses? Why has the reason suddenly changed?

Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

[DuncanONeil]

Well, apparently we know which side it is that blindly follows one side, just stick with Wisco. Which side is the one that merely denies the others right to have an opinion and question data?


Only on one side, unfortunately.



Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.



I did. Not a fact (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080129-baffin-ice.html).



A-freakin'-men.



No argument there.



Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html).



The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.



The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[DuncanONeil]

The South polar regions are creating more ice!
"# Ice cover doubles the area of Antarctica each year -- extending the continent to approximately 30 million square miles." (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/snow-ice.shtml)


I misread it... Not that I can figure out what difference it makes. Running the search again...

Still not a fact (http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/arcglrec.htm).



I call foul on that one. You're dismissing evidence you don't like based on your ability to read their collective mind.



Knowing there's a cycle isn't the same as proving we're in a certain point in that cycle. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence the increase in atmospheric CO2 mirrors the increase in temperatures (http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/CO2-Temp.jpg) over the years. I'm sorry, but thinking this is coincidental seems a little unreasonable to me.



It's over century's worth of data.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it untrue?


That's just plain untrue.

[Midnytedreams]

Duncan it is called a debate both sides have there opinion. that's what these threads are for. to debate your opinion , not attack another personally for their opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
The counter arguments can not be "just wrong" when there is data to support them!

But the question is is CO2 leading temperature or is temperature leading CO2?


Sorry, that's just wrong. The link between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming is solid. In fact, there is little evidence that there is any link between the sun and geo-thermal action. Aside from electromagnetic radiation from the sun, only tidal effects are felt on Earth, and the moon has a larger effect than the sun. And while tidal effects cause friction, which causes heat, these factors are relatively constant and cannot be causing current global warming.


Exactly! And the data shows that the average global temperature and the average CO2 content of the atmosphere are rising at a higher rate than ever before.


Yes, we have. Think smog. Think acid rain. Think nuclear fallout, from Alamogordo to Chernobyl.


This is also true. Science will ALWAYS be collating data. That's what scientists do! That doesn't mean there isn't enough data now to define a trend. But political scare tactics are being used, as well as pressure on those who MAY have evidence which contradicts SOME of the science.


This was not a whistle-blower, this was a hacker. He illegally stole e-documents which did not belong to him. He should be arrested and prosecuted as a criminal. And the "transgressions" are a few phrases which have been taken out of context and blown up into a vast conspiracy. It's a tempest in a teapot.

[DuncanONeil]

all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."


Sorry but here you have a massive fail. There is no logic whatsoever in this statement. Conversely to claim that the cycles of nature are to be discounted because they present an impediment to the intended outcome is also illogical.

[DuncanONeil]

Again, your logic is fail.
You rail at the presentation by anyone that cycles exist as if it does not matter. Yet you admit cycles exist. Even claim there is no way of knowing where in said cycle this point in time is.
All of this being said it seems that those being true you also can not claim that the current belief in a runaway warming must be considered true. Based on your own statements concerning planetary cycles. You have no way of knowing if this cycle is about to turn, as some evidence suggests, or if the actions you are in favor of will result in a catastrophic result.


I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually you are arguing there is no cycle, while at the same time admitting they exist.

As for credible evidence you also have provided none.
The fact of the matter is that there is evidence presented that supports both sides. Yet one side of the argument likes to discount historical events that do not fit the parameters of the hypothesis.


Ian, I've got to ask the most obvious question here; so what?

No one's arguing that there isn't some cycle, but no one seems to be able to bring any credible evidence at all that the current warming is a result of that cycle.

As I said before, a cyclical climate is a fact in search of context.

[DuncanONeil]

Question! What is the use of CO2 in the life of the planet?


The best thing to do is to ignore what the government and newspapers say the scientific evidence is and go straight to relevant journals. If you're interested in the subject then Environmental Chemistry would be a good place to start but to my knowledge the vast majority of scientists who specifically study the climate do think that human activity is having a significant effect on the levels of things like carbon dioxide.

Personally I don't think there's any argument that we're producing far too much carbon dioxide, virtually everything we do produces it including breathe. Whether or not that translates into global warming I don't know, I certainly don't think it's doing any good.

[DuncanONeil]

Copenhagen is an Obama style stimulus for the world. Likely with as stellar results!


As I said before follow the money exert from 2009 coppenhagen conference

Climate politics is a numbers game: its about temperatures, emissions, and allowances. But the most important numbers are possibly the ones preceded by dollar or Euro signs.



“Money is even more important now the parties are coming up with only a political statement not a legally binding agreement,” says David McCauley, Principal Climate Change Specialist, Asian Development Bank.



Political statements won’t reduce emissions; cash will. So said South Africa the day before the Copenhagen talks began. It offered to cut carbon emissions to 34 percent below expected levels by 2020, but only if the rich world provided money to help.



The president of the African Development Bank, Donald Kaberuka, said he wanted 40 billion dollars a year from rich countries “to enable low-income countries to adapt.”



These statements crystallize the money matters at the heart of climate politics.



-Will the rich pay the poor to go green?

-Will the rich compensate the poor for wrecking their environment?

[DuncanONeil]

That is not even on the table! Beside what in all the doom and gloom makes you think that is even a possibility?
Mankind has survived far worse with less abilities.


When the worst case scenario is "We all die" don't you think it's worth considering?

[DuncanONeil]

But such a diversion is always at the mercy of someone finding a little fish that might get hurt!


Whoever claimed "we all die" was the worst case scenario. That's really over the top.

In fact, those most at risk early on have the most to gain. Instead of concentrating on somehow reversing the trends (which I'll say again are not unusual historically, even within the history of mankind since we began writing it down,) why not build floating cities to replace the island and coastal regions at risk. And, as I implied, we might find the great deserts becoming lush again, and if not, we have the technology to bring the water to the deserts. (Even in this country, with the Columbia spilling millions of gallons of fresh water into the pacific every minute, we could certainly divert a million an hour to southern California.) Costly, but less so than a futile battle (imo) against a natural cycle, even if we are making it happen faster.

[DuncanONeil]

The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production. Also adversely affect the amount of O2 produced. Sufficient reduction in plant life can progress to a reduction in animal life.
The need to reduce CO2 emmisions is very likely to seriously affect the ability of large percentages of people to actually even get to their jobs. Thereby forcing an major shift in the population demographics, likely resulting in crowded conditions. Said crowding can have its own problems.
Other requirements to support the planned levels of CO2 could necessitate rationing of many things we take for granted now.

All of this taken together paints a picture of a society that can not be supported at its current levels. How could the world population be effectively culled under this scenario?


What does CO2 reductions have to do with being unable to live, work and feed ourselves?

Some places have done this successfully. Myth or not (climate change), but being able to live in a more environmentally friendly does not require us to stop eating, or living.

[DuncanONeil]

You have some interesting ideas in there!


Do we need to? ;)

Switch to coal, we have plenty. (I know, it doesn't solve the CO2 issue.) Switch to wind and hydro and solar. Use the electricity to split H2O and burn it as mobile fuel.

Save the oil for petrochemicals.

Grow more plants and trees and recapture the CO2, replenish the O2.
Capture and burn methane for fuel (it does more harm per given quantity than the CO2)

Lots of solutions that will help mitigate greenhouse gases, that would be good for the economy and the environment. I'm not against moving these technologies forward. I'm in favor. I just don't think it will have an impact on the overall climate.

The sun warms this planet's surface and atmosphere. Nothing else has even a percentile of the sun's effect. And the sun's is HUGE. A small change in the sun is all it takes. We're fortunate on this planet to have so much water. The oceans are a huge heat sink. Otherwise these "minor" solar flucuations would have wiped the earth of life a long long time ago.

But given that, we haven't been around long enough (and certainly not keeping records, and even more certainly, not understanding the mechanisms,) to understand, let alone predict, what's coming next.

[DuncanONeil]

I heard a presentation by an interested party to the global warming issue. He presented a series of graphs describing the amount of radiation emanating from the planet, unsure if it was long wave or short wave but it was related to the question. Also I can not remember the name of the researcher.
The upshot of the research was that the planet is releasing more radiation back into space than would be expected if the levels of CO2 were in fact trapping heat in the atmosphere.
The presnter was a gentleman by the name of Monkton


Can you elaborate please? I don't follow

[DuncanONeil]

Four of the top five sources for US imported OIL are in the Western Hemisphere!


You 'mericans do you y'all get a lot of your gas from Canada ;)

[DuncanONeil]

Duncan it is called a debate both sides have there opinion. that's what these threads are for. to debate your opinion , not attack another personally for their opinion.

Which post?

[Lion]

The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.

Where did you get this from? (That the reduction will cause adverse affects to food production, not the photosynthesis bit)

[Wiscoman]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!...

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.
Where did you get this from? (That the reduction will cause adverse affects to food production, not the photosynthesis bit)

I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.

[Wiscoman]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;830323]
As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[DuncanONeil]

Bit harsh don't you think?

It does appear that you are correct. But I wonder, with the effects of acid rain so obvious and the disagreement in the issue at hand.
Add to that the proposals for CO2 cap and trade may not be of the smae nature as what was laid out in the previous plan.
Think I might need additional research. But the threat laid out by the President about controlling CO2 makes me worry more!


Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[DuncanONeil]

And you are unwilling to consider any of the evidence presented to you. That puts you in the same boat in which you wish to install me. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.
Who is Glenn Beck?


[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;830323]
As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[Wiscoman]

Bit harsh don't you think?

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

[Wiscoman]

And you are unwilling to consider any of the evidence presented to you.

It'd be a good trick on my part because you haven't actually offered any evidence. All you've done is make a bunch of declarations. If there's a link you've provided to prove anything in this thread, I must've missed it.

[IAN 2411]

Duncan, Wiscoman, you have lost me a little in your deep arguement, and i am just avarage man on the street when it comes to politics. These caps on CO2 emission, just who is going to police the results in ten years or twenty years time, and if they are incorrect, what is going to happen to the defaulting country? China have just been given freedom to do as they please, so what is the point of it all. Say America, The UK and Europe agree on a cap, are we supposed to compensate for the developing countries. It is no good being rough handed with them, because their reply will be, we never stopped you developing 60 years ago, so keep out of our business. We shouldn't have to pay billions of $/£ to developing countries, and then sit back for ten years and pay them more, and all the time watching them get no further forward. China's emisions must be great at the moment, and so to is the old Soviet Union states, Copenhagen was just pissing into the wind, and it was a non starter, because the rich countries have promised a shit load of money to these developing countries and are still no further forward. If the bigest poluter at the moment is unwilling to sign up, then the confrence was a failure, and dont think the Chinese will change their mind in six months or six years, because that Copenhagen confrence was water of a ducks back to them.

[Thorne]

Where does our O2 come from then? And who is to decide what the proper temperature is for this planet? And what if they pick the wrong one?
There is no "right" temperature for the planet. That's a fallacy. What we want is the optimal temperature for human civilization. That would be the temperature which allows the most fertile areas for crop growth to remain productive. For without crop growth, we don't eat!

[Thorne]

And do not forget that the models that are used to predict the future are merely programs written to tinker with the raw data input to produce a result.
We do not know what the tinker rules are, or even the raw data input.


The models are developed from historical data, then run through historical scenarios to insure they match up with actual climate conditions. If they do not, then the programs are "tinkered with" to correct any variations. The data remains the same, only the models are changed. Once they do an accurate job of "post-dicting" climate conditions, they are allowed to run into the future. There are many different models, using many different data sets. All are showing a marked average increase in global temperature. There will be some warming trends and some cooling trends, lasting several years sometimes. But the low temperatures in the cooling trends are not as low as they have been historical, and the high temps in the warming trends are slightly higher than historical. The average temperature is definitely rising.

And the raw data is there to be studied, if you want it. The problem is, the whole damned thing is so complex that, without a lot of study and experience the average person cannot easily understand that data. Even among the experts, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions gathered from the models can vary significantly. But the trend is still upwards.

As for the current supposed cooling trend, remember that the sun has just been going through a sunspot minima period, one which lasted longer than expected. Now, it seems, the sunspots are beginning to return, which will probably mean another warming trend. With a peak temperature higher than the last trend's peak.

[Thorne]

The South polar regions are creating more ice!
"# Ice cover doubles the area of Antarctica each year -- extending the continent to approximately 30 million square miles." (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/snow-ice.shtml)

Misleading! Yes, every year the sea freezes around Antarctica, increasing the apparant size. Just as every year the ice reforms in the Arctic. But each year it also melts again. And the rate of melting is increasing. Overall, the amount of ice on the continent has been decreasing. There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. This is due to variations in WEATHER. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

[denuseri]

I told ya the "Sun" has more to do with it than they wish to give it credit for! But than anyone who has taken astromony can tell you that too. But then again so does geology. But noooooooooo, it has to be humanities fault. Give me a break, yes we can and do effect the atmosphere in different areas, but the entire atmosphere? Their are still scientists that disagree with that theory.

If they have made the "interpetation" of the data hard to analylze , my guess is its been done deliberately.

As for the falsified data mentioned earlier, yes the whistle blower did hack into their stuff, but that didnt change the fact that the scientists in question have been found out to be liars and yet nothing is being done about that. Those who support the whole "lets scare the world into compliance to our agenda" crowd just shrug and keep trying to make the focus on the whistle blower's methods as if that alone somehow invalidates what was being whistled. Typical sophist trick when cuaght red handed. Kind of like the husband that thinks he can get away with the affair if only he denies it happened just one more time.

[steelish]

There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.


Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

[Wiscoman]

These caps on CO2 emission, just who is going to police the results in ten years or twenty years time, and if they are incorrect, what is going to happen to the defaulting country?

I'm not happy with Copenhagen either. But basically, what you're saying is that if you're on a sinking ship and one person refuses to bail, no one should bail and everyone should go down. Obviously, I disagree.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

No. Glaciers are actually expanding in places like Mt. St. Helens, where volcanic activity melted it. Now that the event has ended, the ice comes back. But it won't be as large as it was before the eruption and then it will begin to recede again.

Think of it in terms of profit and loss. Just because a store sells a gallon of milk, it doesn't mean the store is profitable. If the losses are greater than the sales, you're still screwed. Likewise, if the loss of ice is greater than the gains, it's a net loss.

[Lion]

I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.


The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.

This is what I'm asking. I haven't changed any words around.

[steelish]

My issue is that it is almost unheard of for the U.S. government to get involved with anything other than what they were designed to do via the constitution without causing problems and chaos.

[Wiscoman]

My issue is that it is almost unheard of for the U.S. government to get involved with anything other than what they were designed to do via the constitution without causing problems and chaos.

How is regulating industry outside the constitutional purview?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8) of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In any case, it's a matter of national defense. Just because a threat isn't military doesn't mean that the government has no right to defend against it. That'd be an insane and suicidal restriction.

[Thorne]

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

I don't think so. The ice gets thicker in some places, due to localized weather conditions, and thinner in other places. Overall, though, the warming is having an effect.

[Ozme52]

Here's the perfect article: Reduce your family's Carbon Footprint. Here's How You Can Personally Help. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood)

I took the liberty of rewording the title.

[SadisticNature]

Reduce humanities carbon footprint through...

Global Thermonuclear War.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

"Sorry, but that's bullshit."
You think that does not qualify as harsh?!

[DuncanONeil]

It'd be a good trick on my part because you haven't actually offered any evidence. All you've done is make a bunch of declarations. If there's a link you've provided to prove anything in this thread, I must've missed it.

Links prove little. There is evidence that has been presented. There are specialists that have published that call into question the orthodoxy of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. These have been referred to and yet the AGW crowd simply say either;

*"that does not matter"
*"that is an aberration and therefore unimportant" or
*"the consensus of science is"

But the fact is the issue is not settled, the consensus is disputed, it is possible that the warming is aberrant. Add to that the propensity of the AGWs to hide methodology and/or raw data makes the pronouncements suspect. Then there is also the fact that the announced projections use only the worse case scenarios as the baseline.

[DuncanONeil]

Duncan, Wiscoman, you have lost me a little in your deep arguement, and i am just avarage man on the street when it comes to politics. These caps on CO2 emission, just who is going to police the results in ten years or twenty years time, and if they are incorrect, what is going to happen to the defaulting country?

The plan is for there to be an extra-national body that will have the power to regulate.

China have just been given freedom to do as they please, so what is the point of it all.

China was not really given a free hand. They agreed, but refused to allow external verification. Retaining the ability to report themselves how well they are doing.

The UK and Europe agree on a cap, are we supposed to compensate for the developing countries.

The whole plan is for the "rich" countries to pay the "poor" countries for having ruined their air over the years. Here is a bit of info on UK and Europe. They signed on to Kyoto and yet after some ten years their CO2 emissions are actually higher than before. Yet the US without signing on to Kyoto has continued to reduce CO2 emissions

If the bigest poluter at the moment is unwilling to sign up, then the confrence was a failure, and dont think the Chinese will change their mind in six months or six years, because that Copenhagen confrence was water of a ducks back to them.

By this I presume you mean China, as I said above they desire to control the data reported.

[DuncanONeil]

Your response is a tautology! ""right" temperature for the planet" and "optimal temperature for human civilization" is the same thing.

Worse than your food concern is without enough CO2 we don't breathe!
Being the slightest bit off can push the planet into an ice age. Just which do you think would be worse?


There is no "right" temperature for the planet. That's a fallacy. What we want is the optimal temperature for human civilization. That would be the temperature which allows the most fertile areas for crop growth to remain productive. For without crop growth, we don't eat!

[DuncanONeil]

Nothing you say changes the fact that the data is "corrected". Nothing you say changes the facts that the data is not being made available, and that the factor of "correction" and the formulae are not forthcoming.
There should be no need to "correct" historical data. Historical data is fact and if you are to determine trends the raw data is sufficient. If historical data is being "corrected" I find the conclusion already suspect.

Not all models show a marked increase in temperature. Even a single model does not show only increases in temperature. Why then is that the only thing we are supposed to hear or believe? It is harder to believe when it is revealed that the prognostications are in fact the worst case scenario, not the "average" to which you refer.

Average temperatures in the past have been much higher than now, yet the planet seemed to be able to fix itself, presence of man notwithstanding!

Then there is the constant tinkering with the historical record. Along with the fact that the reports are not in concrete terms but in differences of an average. Since the average can be selected, or the "correction" is the determined average, the data over, or under, said average is again suspect.


The models are developed from historical data, then run through historical scenarios to insure they match up with actual climate conditions. If they do not, then the programs are "tinkered with" to correct any variations. The data remains the same, only the models are changed. Once they do an accurate job of "post-dicting" climate conditions, they are allowed to run into the future. There are many different models, using many different data sets. All are showing a marked average increase in global temperature. There will be some warming trends and some cooling trends, lasting several years sometimes. But the low temperatures in the cooling trends are not as low as they have been historical, and the high temps in the warming trends are slightly higher than historical. The average temperature is definitely rising.

And the raw data is there to be studied, if you want it. The problem is, the whole damned thing is so complex that, without a lot of study and experience the average person cannot easily understand that data. Even among the experts, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions gathered from the models can vary significantly. But the trend is still upwards.

As for the current supposed cooling trend, remember that the sun has just been going through a sunspot minima period, one which lasted longer than expected. Now, it seems, the sunspots are beginning to return, which will probably mean another warming trend. With a peak temperature higher than the last trend's peak.

[DuncanONeil]

That was a quote I could find. But you show what I keep saying. The fact that the area doubles each year is simply dismissed as not being a bit important since it affects the AGW mantra.
For what you say to be true, the area has to double each year and that much and more must melt, each year.
Also reports have been both heard and seen that the depth of the ice cover on the continet is increasing as well. I could not find a quote in the time alloted to produce responses.


Misleading! Yes, every year the sea freezes around Antarctica, increasing the apparant size. Just as every year the ice reforms in the Arctic. But each year it also melts again. And the rate of melting is increasing. Overall, the amount of ice on the continent has been decreasing. There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. This is due to variations in WEATHER. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

[DuncanONeil]

The reason that the "hacking" is being made the focus of the news is to attempt to attack the messenger since the message can't be attacked.
When an inconvenient truth surfaces, do everything you can to swing the focus off the truth and on to something else.




As for the falsified data mentioned earlier, yes the whistle blower did hack into their stuff, but that didnt change the fact that the scientists in question have been found out to be liars and yet nothing is being done about that. Those who support the whole "lets scare the world into compliance to our agenda" crowd just shrug and keep trying to make the focus on the whistle blower's methods as if that alone somehow invalidates what was being whistled. Typical sophist trick when cuaght red handed. Kind of like the husband that thinks he can get away with the affair if only he denies it happened just one more time.

[DuncanONeil]

I'm not happy with Copenhagen either. But basically, what you're saying is that if you're on a sinking ship and one person refuses to bail, no one should bail and everyone should go down. Obviously, I disagree.

So if you are on a ship and the word is there is a 30 foot hole up front and we all need to bail to help the pumps. But George saw a 30 inch hole, well within the capabilities of the pumps, everyone must still bail?

[DuncanONeil]

And there are reports of an increase in volcanic activity. Perhaps that is the planet changing the atmosphere. If that is the case, and we futz with the atmosphere, perhaps we would be making it too cool


No. Glaciers are actually expanding in places like Mt. St. Helens, where volcanic activity melted it. Now that the event has ended, the ice comes back. But it won't be as large as it was before the eruption and then it will begin to recede again.

Think of it in terms of profit and loss. Just because a store sells a gallon of milk, it doesn't mean the store is profitable. If the losses are greater than the sales, you're still screwed. Likewise, if the loss of ice is greater than the gains, it's a net loss.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.
This is what I'm asking. I haven't changed any words around.


The point is that a forced reduction in CO2 reduces the amount available for plant respiration. With sufficient reduction plant life would need to produce less offspring to survive. Hence less to support other life on up the chain.

[DuncanONeil]

Regulating CO2 emissions is not commerce!
Especially when the pressure to allow legislation is a threat to use extra-legislative means and make it worse.


How is regulating industry outside the constitutional purview?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8) of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In any case, it's a matter of national defense. Just because a threat isn't military doesn't mean that the government has no right to defend against it. That'd be an insane and suicidal restriction.

[steelish]

How is regulating industry outside the constitutional purview?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8) of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In any case, it's a matter of national defense. Just because a threat isn't military doesn't mean that the government has no right to defend against it. That'd be an insane and suicidal restriction.

Define "threat" the EXACT same way that the federal government will define it. What you deem to be a threat I'm sure would be a lot more serious than what the feds would define it as. Besides, they're not regulating uniformly across the US. What they're doing is making deals with foreign governments, hoping that the other governments will be honest and follow similar regulations. It WON'T happen! China is already balking and stepping back from the entire issue.

Who is going to police this? Who is responsible for making sure the Cap and Trade regulations are followed? The EPA? I'm sure the other countries are all for the U.S. policing it. (Ha!) Are we planning on using the honor system? We're going to trust that everyone will follow regulations? (Just as we trust that others don't try to build nuclear weapons, or plan attacks, or plot against the U.S.)

Besides, the text from the constitution has been taken out of context (in my opinion).

To break it down:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

It is my belief that when they wrote; "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" they were speaking of GENERAL WELFARE - the United States as a nation, not individual welfare (as in health care, and I realize this thread is not about health care, and I will get to the Cap and Trade thing later).

then they wrote; "but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" This implies that all states are to be treated equally and the states are to form their own laws/policies. (again, according to provisions in the healthcare bill, some states are treated differently than others)

and now to get to what you were referring to;
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

The Cap and Trade does NOT regulate commerce! It regulates emissions and carbon footprints! And while we're restricting ourselves and imposing these policies that raise the prices of all our goods to our own citizens, how are we to ensure that other world powers are doing the same? We take their word for it? Are they going to allow the EPA - a U.S. agency - come in and "police" their production facilities?

[DuncanONeil]

The Cap and Trade does NOT regulate commerce! It regulates emissions and carbon footprints! And while we're restricting ourselves and imposing these policies that raise the prices of all our goods to our own citizens, how are we to ensure that other world powers are doing the same? We take their word for it? Are they going to allow the EPA - a U.S. agency - come in and "police" their production facilities?


And at the same time we are increasing the costs to our own people. we promise to pay Billions to the rest of the world. Not give or lend but PAY.

[steelish]

And at the same time we are increasing the costs to our own people.

lol. That's what I said!



We promise to pay Billions to the rest of the world. Not give or lend but PAY.

Now THAT'S the part I think many "pro" Cap and Trade citizens DON'T realize! Not only that, but there won't be any reciprocation...and we will likely be one of the few developed countries doing it. (It's all about redistributing the wealth...on a global scale)

[DuncanONeil]

lol. That's what I said!



Now THAT'S the part I think many "pro" Cap and Trade citizens DON'T realize! Not only that, but there won't be any reciprocation...and we will likely be one of the few developed countries doing it. (It's all about redistributing the wealth...on a global scale)


And it is reported that the Copenhagen agreement also permits the establishment of an extra national body with the power to lay taxes and penalties!

[steelish]

And it is reported that the Copenhagen agreement also permits the establishment of an extra national body with the power to lay taxes and penalties!

I have no doubt of that. We certainly have a shortfall of federal organizations. (Can you see my eyes rolling? 'Cause they are!)

[DuncanONeil]

Yes but this is a body with ties to no nation with the power to tax and levy fines!!!!!


I have no doubt of that. We certainly have a shortfall of federal organizations. (Can you see my eyes rolling? 'Cause they are!)

[steelish]

Yes but this is a body with ties to no nation with the power to tax and levy fines!!!!!

I know. The blind acceptance is what scares me. Either that or many are so blinded by the "do good" attitude that our government has nurtured that in the effort to save a tree they will ruin the forest.

[VaAugusta]

Deleted by moderator for flaming.

[TantricSoul]

As the friendly neighborhood moderator I would like to say:

STAY ON TOPIC, IF YOU NEED TO ATTACK SOMETHING IN YOUR POST, ATTACK THE THREAD NOT THE OTHER POSTERS!

You've been warned.

TS

[steelish]

Yes but this is a body with ties to no nation with the power to tax and levy fines!!!!!

In which case it would be an "international" body...no?

[leo9]

I've stayed out of this thread up till now for fear of what I might find, but at last I couldn't resist. It was as bad as I feared... man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.

I'm going to post once, then I'm getting out of here and staying out, or I'll go mad.

Some simple facts (I'd call them "inconvenient truths," but the flames would be beyond the moderators' control.)

Forty years ago when I was an "ecologist" (as they called environmentalists back then), the theory of global warming was already worked out and the predictions of what would happen had been made. Those predictions have come true, for forty years now. Most scientists would call that proof.

It's not about complicated computer models: the theory is simple arithmetic. The complicated models are to work out what the simple arithmetic for the planet means in detail, country by country and year by year. In the same way that doctors can do a quick X-ray to tell you you've got cancer, then need more tests to tell you exactly when and how you'll get sick and what treatment is best: but if you think all those tests mean they're not sure about the cancer, you're fooling yourself.

The data is not hidden or suppressed or secret. Weather stations all over the world publish their results and have done for a century or more, and the results are collected in many places, and anyone who cares can collate the results and do the math. Nobody is hiding it or faking it. Unless you want to believe that all the meteorologists all over the world, not to mention all the geographers and oceanographers and climatologists and ecologists and NASA, are united in a vast conspiracy to lead us into the hands of communism... in which case, just keep your tinfoil hat on and wait for the UFOs to save us.

And finally (sigh) no, there is no possibility, zero, zilch, nada, that efforts to cut CO2 emissions might lower it to the point where plants grow less. Plants did just fine before humans started burning fossil fuels, and they will do just fine when we finally give up doing it, because humans and animals will still go on breathing. Well, most of them. There is a real possibility that a lot of humans will stop breathing if we screw up the climate badly enough, but that won't bother the plants.

Now I'm off, before the replies make me give up discussion altogether, to get back to my project to move to a self-sufficient farm on high ground in Sweden. Because if this, Gaia forgive us, is an intelligent group talking, then it's painfully clear that nothing will be done till the sea is lapping over the streets of New York, by which time it will be far, far too late.

[DuncanONeil]

I know. The blind acceptance is what scares me. Either that or many are so blinded by the "do good" attitude that our government has nurtured that in the effort to save a tree they will ruin the forest.


I think you hit the nail on the head her! Perhaps if we hit it harder they will gets some sense.

[DuncanONeil]

In which case it would be an "international" body...no?


In this case, no. It is more appropriately identified as "Extra-national" or "Supranational"

[DuncanONeil]

I'd be willing to respond but what is the point. A hit and run poster is not interested!

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??


I've stayed out of this thread up till now for fear of what I might find, but at last I couldn't resist. It was as bad as I feared... man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.

I'm going to post once, then I'm getting out of here and staying out, or I'll go mad.

Some simple facts (I'd call them "inconvenient truths," but the flames would be beyond the moderators' control.)

Forty years ago when I was an "ecologist" (as they called environmentalists back then), the theory of global warming was already worked out and the predictions of what would happen had been made. Those predictions have come true, for forty years now. Most scientists would call that proof.

It's not about complicated computer models: the theory is simple arithmetic. The complicated models are to work out what the simple arithmetic for the planet means in detail, country by country and year by year. In the same way that doctors can do a quick X-ray to tell you you've got cancer, then need more tests to tell you exactly when and how you'll get sick and what treatment is best: but if you think all those tests mean they're not sure about the cancer, you're fooling yourself.

The data is not hidden or suppressed or secret. Weather stations all over the world publish their results and have done for a century or more, and the results are collected in many places, and anyone who cares can collate the results and do the math. Nobody is hiding it or faking it. Unless you want to believe that all the meteorologists all over the world, not to mention all the geographers and oceanographers and climatologists and ecologists and NASA, are united in a vast conspiracy to lead us into the hands of communism... in which case, just keep your tinfoil hat on and wait for the UFOs to save us.

And finally (sigh) no, there is no possibility, zero, zilch, nada, that efforts to cut CO2 emissions might lower it to the point where plants grow less. Plants did just fine before humans started burning fossil fuels, and they will do just fine when we finally give up doing it, because humans and animals will still go on breathing. Well, most of them. There is a real possibility that a lot of humans will stop breathing if we screw up the climate badly enough, but that won't bother the plants.

Now I'm off, before the replies make me give up discussion altogether, to get back to my project to move to a self-sufficient farm on high ground in Sweden. Because if this, Gaia forgive us, is an intelligent group talking, then it's painfully clear that nothing will be done till the sea is lapping over the streets of New York, by which time it will be far, far too late.

[steelish]

The data is not hidden or suppressed or secret. Weather stations all over the world publish their results and have done for a century or more, and the results are collected in many places, and anyone who cares can collate the results and do the math. Nobody is hiding it or faking it. Unless you want to believe that all the meteorologists all over the world, not to mention all the geographers and oceanographers and climatologists and ecologists and NASA, are united in a vast conspiracy to lead us into the hands of communism... in which case, just keep your tinfoil hat on and wait for the UFOs to save us.

And finally (sigh) no, there is no possibility, zero, zilch, nada, that efforts to cut CO2 emissions might lower it to the point where plants grow less. Plants did just fine before humans started burning fossil fuels, and they will do just fine when we finally give up doing it, because humans and animals will still go on breathing. Well, most of them. There is a real possibility that a lot of humans will stop breathing if we screw up the climate badly enough, but that won't bother the plants.

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed. What many of us are saying is that many of the scientists who rely upon the government for grants and funding have "twisted" the reports on the results to allow the government to continue with their scare tactics.

And more to the point, not ALL scientists agree on this issue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming) There are many who refute the entire Global Warming/Climate Change issue.

We exhale CO2...since when is it considered a toxic gas? No one has claimed that reducing carbon emissions will cause less plant growth. (at least, I certainly don't think that) We simply pointed out that plants turn CO2 into oxygen. The scare tactics used are humorous, at best. It certainly doesn't help the "Climate Change" cause that the most vocal supporter is Al Gore, a veritable nut job. Not only is he loony as a jaybird, he also stands to make a LOT of money from the "climate change" scare as long as he can keep the train moving forward.

[skp2bear]

In Houston this morning at 6:30 it was 54 degrees. Our normal daily temperature this time of year is 62. It is now 39. Tomorrow we will not get above freezing. I cannot recall ever having a prolonged hard freeze for this long and I am 65. I tend to agree with Ducan supporting the tilting of the earth's axis as the culprit having seen no indication of prolonged heat waves even where we are said to have a subtropical climate.

[steelish]

In Houston this morning at 6:30 it was 54 degrees. Our normal daily temperature this time of year is 62. It is now 39. Tomorrow we will not get above freezing. I cannot recall ever having a prolonged hard freeze for this long and I am 65. I tend to agree with Ducan supporting the tilting of the earth's axis as the culprit having seen no indication of prolonged heat waves even where we are said to have a subtropical climate.

Ah, but have no doubt...the record lows will be attributed to the "Climate Change" debacle!

[DuncanONeil]

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed. What many of us are saying is that many of the scientists who rely upon the government for grants and funding have "twisted" the reports on the results to allow the government to continue with their scare tactics.

It certainly doesn't help the "Climate Change" cause that the most vocal supporter is Al Gore, a veritable nut job. Not only is he loony as a jaybird, he also stands to make a LOT of money from the "climate change" scare as long as he can keep the train moving forward.


Do not forget that that "twisted report" was compounded by destruction of the raw data used to produce it. As well as the "fudge factor in the model used to finalize the data.

As for Gore do not forget that he has brought up the several million degrees inside that planet as being an additional contributer to Global Warming!

[DuncanONeil]

Ah, but have no doubt...the record lows will be attributed to the "Climate Change" debacle!


That is one of the reasons that the term has been changed. Probably also to get around the inconvenience of the planet cooling.
Of course they also attribute the cooling to Global Warming, saying that; it many be colder here but that is because it is too much warmer elsewhere.

[leo9]

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed.
On the contrary, many people have said this and keep on saying it:


Do not forget that that "twisted report" was compounded by destruction of the raw data used to produce it.
Dudes, the raw data is in the public domain, all over the world. But if people look at the original figures they won't see what you want, so it's simpler to claim the figures don't exist.


What many of us are saying is that many of the scientists who rely upon the government for grants and funding have "twisted" the reports on the results to allow the government to continue with their scare tactics.

So when thousands of scientists who don't rely on government funding say the same thing, you have to invent other reasons why they're lying.

Scientists lost their funding and lost their jobs under the previous administration for reporting climate changes that Dubya didn't want to hear about. That's on the record. Show me one person who's lost grants or funding for attacking AGW.

And more to the point, not ALL scientists agree on this issue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming) There are many who refute the entire Global Warming/Climate Change issue.
There is always someone to put the contrary case, that's how science works. A says yes, B says no, the rest look at the evidence and a majority come around to one point of view. You can find scientists to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that cold fusion works, and that evolution is caused by virusses from space. All of them will tell you that the reason the majority of scientist disagree with them is that they're in the grip of a vast conspiracy.

And these contrarians are not always harmless sideshows. When HIV deniers got the ear of the South African government, thousands of deadly ill people were denied life-saving drugs and told to cure themselves by eating beetroot.


No one has claimed that reducing carbon emissions will cause less plant growth. (at least, I certainly don't think that)
Duncan said exactly that, several times. If you're claiming it was a joke now you've been called on it, let him say so.



As for Gore do not forget that he has brought up the several million degrees inside that planet as being an additional contributer to Global Warming!

I haven't seen the original quote, but I would bet a lot of money that it's been misquoted, the way a perfectly true remark about his involvement in ARPAnet was twisted into "Gore claims he invented the Internet". Geography 101 will tell you that the Earth's internal heat is part of the world's thermal economy, so yes, it does contribute to climate change. Or do you know something about geophysics that I and Gore don't?

Sigh... I said I wouldn't get caught up in this. Being drawn in... Must resist... Sanity in danger...

[leo9]

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??

My point exactly. There was a theory that predicted an ice age, and within a few years it became clear that the things it predicted were not happening, so it was forgotten like a million other theories that didn't work out. And there was a theory that predicted global warming, and year after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said, so more and more scientists came round to it, until it changed from a crank theory to the accepted fact and the Bush administration had to start firing people for saying it. That's how science works: by the evidence.

Which is why scientists don't speak the language of politics, where evidence is less important than who owns the media.

[Thorne]

Geography 101 will tell you that the Earth's internal heat is part of the world's thermal economy, so yes, it does contribute to climate change.
The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

[leo9]

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.

[IAN 2411]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??

I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years, and i watched a two hour Geographic program, and i have no doubt that the Scientists and oceanographers were telelling the truth as they see it. Is it because it goes against the global warming theory, that is getting certain peoples backs up that you cannot get it to sink in. It has taken years of green peace and save the earth organisations to spread the news, and now that everyone has jumped on the band wagon, no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?

Regards ian 2411

[leo9]

Quote:

I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years, and i watched a two hour Geographic program, and i have no doubt that the Scientists and oceanographers were telelling the truth as they see it. Is it because it goes against the global warming theory, that is getting certain peoples backs up that you cannot get it to sink in. It has taken years of green peace and save the earth organisations to spread the news, and now that everyone has jumped on the band wagon, no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?


Scientists make mistakes. Even brilliant scientists make mistakes. Newton believed in alchemy just as sincerely as he believed in gravity. Sir Fred Hoyle, whose theory that new species are created by virusses from space I quoted before, is a noted astronomer with some major contributions to cosmology.

The history of science as popularly taught gives the impression that someone comes up with a theory and that's it, it goes into the textbooks as a Law. They leave out the long process whereby the theory is tested by the rest of the scientific community, its reasoning examined, its predictions tested, before it is accepted by a majority of those who know the subject. There are usually some holdouts. A physicist said "Once we believed that light was waves, now we believe it is particles. The reason we all believe it is particles is that those who believed it was waves have died."

Popular history also leaves out that there are almost always competing theories. When Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Descartes - a mathematician of equal standing - was advancing a theory that gravity was caused by whirlpools in the ether. Scientists didn't choose Newton's theory because they liked his politics (French scientists certainly didn't), but because it made clear predictions which clearly came true. Science is a communal work as well as a work of individual geniuses, and the job of the community is to sort out which genius is right.

Sometimes the test of the predictions takes time. The Theory of Relativity had to wait years for a solar eclipse to test the prediction that gravity bends light rays: when that was shown to be true, most sceptics came around. AGW had to wait decades for enough observations of the slow changes in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature to accumulate to convince the scientific community: and, as ever, there are holdouts. There would be even if the oil industry weren't pouring money their way, that's the nature of science.

As for mini Ice Ages, it's certainly the case that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and that if it fails completely it would have grave consequences for Europe and North America. That is one of the consequences of AGW which has been predicted as a possibility for decades and seems to be coming true. But the fact that AGW may freeze you and me doesn't alter the globe warming up overall. That's why they call it climate change: because the effects will be different in different places.

Have you ever had your car radiator freeze, and so the engine overheats? What would you say to a guy who said "Look, the engine's boiling, that can't be caused by freezing"?

[steelish]

On the contrary, many people have said this and keep on saying it.

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

[DuncanONeil]

"(Y)ear after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said"

But that is not the case. And we still have to deal with the reports that purport to "prove" Global Warming" are based on data that was destroyed, and a mathematical formula that is being kept secret.

Add to that the 'science' of green house gases say that when they increase in the atmosphere more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere. Yet data reports that there is more radiation escaping to space than heretofore.

[DuncanONeil]

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

Not according to Gore who has stated on more than one occasion the millions of degrees of heat internal to the Earth contribute to Global Warming.

[DuncanONeil]

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.

Sorry but Gore did say that, at least twice. I heard him with my own little ears. And he got that data wrong as well. Both times!

[DuncanONeil]

"I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years"

No! we are talking about the 70s, dear!

[leo9]

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

No, you're right, Duncan said it was "destroyed." I guess he could have meant it was an honest mistake, not a deliberate act of suppression or concealment.

Was that what you meant, Duncan?

[DuncanONeil]

"no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?"

There are actually two things going on here. One there is global warming and then there is Global Warming. The first is the temperature of the planet seems to be increasing. The second, well, evil little man is deliberately destroying the planet by his pollution and use of fossil is the primary cause.

As to believing a theory. Those that worship in the church of Global Warming will accept nothing that goes against their patriarchs. Anyone that discounts their patriarchs is simply unable to see the truth as laid down by those august persons. If they will not belive they must be pilloried!

[DuncanONeil]

Popular history also leaves out that there are almost always competing theories. When Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Descartes - a mathematician of equal standing - was advancing a theory that gravity was caused by whirlpools in the ether. Scientists didn't choose Newton's theory because they liked his politics (French scientists certainly didn't), but because it made clear predictions which clearly came true.
Sometimes the test of the predictions takes time. The Theory of Relativity had to wait years for a solar eclipse to test the prediction that gravity bends light rays: when that was shown to be true, most sceptics came around. AGW had to wait decades for enough observations of the slow changes in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature to accumulate to convince the scientific community:

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!


As for mini Ice Ages, it's certainly the case that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and that if it fails completely it would have grave consequences for Europe and North America. That is one of the consequences of AGW which has been predicted as a possibility for decades and seems to be coming true.
Yes is it not interesting that Global Warming can cause us to freeze? They did not change the term to be more accurate, it was because they then can dismiss things like an inconvenient cooling (like the last 12 years). I also find it telling that the AGW crowd prefer to start their little experiment after the completion of the Little Ice Age of the 19th century.
At least you admit that AGW is not a fact in the last sentence


But the fact that AGW may freeze you and me doesn't alter the globe warming up overall. That's why they call it climate change: because the effects will be different in different places.

Again there is the primary reason that the title of this favorite disaster epic has been changed. To deal with the Inconvenient Truth that the planet is not following their game plan.

[/QUOTE]

[DuncanONeil]

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed


I believe I did say the guys in Manchester destroyed their source data and that their model program has a formula for adjusting the data that is being held back from the peer community.

[leo9]

"(Y)ear after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said"

But that is not the case.

So you keep saying. Thousands of weather stations around the globe say differently. One big conspiracy.

And we still have to deal with the reports that purport to "prove" Global Warming" are based on data that was destroyed, and a mathematical formula that is being kept secret.

What data? Reports from weather stations all over the world, all in the public domain? They managed to destroy all that? Wow, that is some conspiracy. And the "secret" formulae have been in science papers published over the past 40 years.

By the way, Steelish says that nobody on this thread has claimed that anything was hidden or suppressed. That nobody would be you, right?


Add to that the 'science' of green house gases say that when they increase in the atmosphere more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere. Yet data reports that there is more radiation escaping to space than heretofore.
Where is this data, and why, if that's the case, do the meteorologists say the last decade was the hottest on record? I forgot, they're all lying.

[Thorne]

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.
I beg to differ, but you did say "it does contribute to climate change". As a relative constant it does not contribute to climate change, but it does contribute to the overall temperature of the planet. It could only contribute to change if it were changing, similar to the way the CO2 level is changing, or the methane level is changing, or the solar influx is constantly changing.

And for the record, despite what Al Gore says, the temperature at the core of the Earth in not several million degrees. It's about 13,000 degrees F.

[Thorne]

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.

[QUOTE]At least you admit that AGW is not a fact in the last sentence

I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.

[steelish]

I believe I did say the guys in Manchester destroyed their source data and that their model program has a formula for adjusting the data that is being held back from the peer community.

I must have completely missed that post or focused on something else within it. I didn't realize you mentioned that.

I do know that I've seen avoidance of peer reviews discussed elsewhere.

[leo9]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;835804]
Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.
I've often been struck by the similarities of style between AGW deniers and creationists, but I never expected to see this particular creationist specialty repeated here - "You call it a theory, that means it's not proved, ha ha!"

It is a depressing thought that the most highly educated culture in history, with more universities and more people in study than ever before, might walk cheerfully off a cliff because a majority of its citizens don't know or don't care about the basic principles of scientific method.


I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.
The comparison above is apt, because there is as much controversy about it as there is about evolution. Which is to say that the theory of the basic mechanism long ago passed enough empirical tests to satisfy the majority of specialists, but there remains a very large area of argument about exactly how and where that mechanism is being expressed, and there also remains a small group who, for ideological reasons or simple conservatism, can't accept the proofs that convince the rest: and by dishonestly conflating these two groups, it is possible to create the impression for outsiders that scientific opinion is divided.

The UEA's work is a case in point. What they were working on was not the basic principle of climate change, which they and all their peers take as long proved, but the detailed questions of exactly how and where and how fast the changes will happen: so even if every word of their reports were proved to be false, it would only change the details of policy. But the deniers constantly spin it as though the basic theory were being disproved, in the same way that creationists point to the faking of Piltdown Man as if it disproved the entire theory of human evolution.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=Thorne;835822]I've often been struck by the similarities of style between AGW deniers and creationists, but I never expected to see this particular creationist specialty repeated here - "You call it a theory, that means it's not proved, ha ha!"

It is a depressing thought that the most highly educated culture in history, with more universities and more people in study than ever before, might walk cheerfully off a cliff because a majority of its citizens don't know or don't care about the basic principles of scientific method.

The comparison above is apt, because there is as much controversy about it as there is about evolution. Which is to say that the theory of the basic mechanism long ago passed enough empirical tests to satisfy the majority of specialists, but there remains a very large area of argument about exactly how and where that mechanism is being expressed, and there also remains a small group who, for ideological reasons or simple conservatism, can't accept the proofs that convince the rest: and by dishonestly conflating these two groups, it is possible to create the impression for outsiders that scientific opinion is divided.

The UEA's work is a case in point. What they were working on was not the basic principle of climate change, which they and all their peers take as long proved, but the detailed questions of exactly how and where and how fast the changes will happen: so even if every word of their reports were proved to be false, it would only change the details of policy. But the deniers constantly spin it as though the basic theory were being disproved, in the same way that creationists point to the faking of Piltdown Man as if it disproved the entire theory of human evolution.

I think we are in agreement, here. Like evolution, global warming is about as sure as can possibly be, the two theories agreed upon by virtually all qualified scientists. The mechanisms for both, however, are not so clear. In the area of evolution, survival of the fittest still remains classified more as an hypothesis, with some increasingly serious problems, but evolution still remains as a confirmed theory. Similarly, AGW is still being argued in the scientific circles, but global warming itself is virtually uncontested.

Among qualified scientists. The wishful thinking and ugly rhetoric of the political pundits have no place in the science of climate, just as the silly fairy tales and pulpit pounding of the biblical literalists have no place in the science of evolution.

[DuncanONeil]

What data? Reports from weather stations all over the world, all in the public domain? They managed to destroy all that? Wow, that is some conspiracy. And the "secret" formulae have been in science papers published over the past 40 years.The data that the "experts" in Manchester used to plug into their model with the hidden fudge factor. That data!

[leo9]

For those who are interested in reality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

This has been recognised as a theoretical risk for a long time, but nobody knew how soon, if ever, it would develop. The answer seems to be - if these readings aren't a blip - dangerously soon. Depending on how the curves develop, this either means we have less time than we hoped, or that it's already too late.

And for the rest, it's another lie from the vast global conspiracy of geographers, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, and scientists in general trying to drive us into a communist dictatorship.

[steelish]

I hear the end of life as we know it will occur on 12/21/12, so live it up while you can, people!

[leo9]

The data that the "experts" in Manchester used to plug into their model with the hidden fudge factor. That data!

Science is built on reproducible results. In politics or religion, when someone says that X is so, people decide whether to believe it according to how well it sits with their prejudices and whether the speaker has a charismatic delivery. Scientists, being human, are sometimes influenced by these things, but what they try to concentrate on is: can we try it ourselves (run the experiment, do the observations, crunch the numbers) and get the same answer? If the answer is yes, they believe it. If the answer is no – either because the original paper didn't give enough information, or because the results don't work out – then it doesn't matter how ideologically correct the source is or how persuasive the write-up, it will not stand.

For example, this is why nobody (much) believes in cold fusion any more. People wanted to believe the original paper – as my then wife wrote, “if this is true, the gods have forgiven us” - and a great many labs jumped to put together the device and see if it did what they said. And it didn't. No prejudice, no Big Oil conspiracy: it just didn't work.

The basic theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming does not depend on “secret” data or complicated formulae. The data are all in the public domain, and anyone with the patience can crunch the numbers and see what comes out. And over the decades a great many people have, and got the same answers, which is why they believe it. No politics, no conspiracy: it just works.

The fancy number-crunching comes when people try to go beyond predicting the general trends and try to find out what exactly it means for, say, Europe or North America; and for that, they must use fancy models with lots of special parameters to try to draw out the particular effects they are looking for. And if they are foolish enough not to publish the details of their models so that others can try it, they will not get much credibility. But the overall facts remain available to everyone, and no-one can destroy or suppress those, any more than you can suppress this morning's weather report.

[denuseri]

So all this el nino stuff has really been the earth working up to a really big fart?

lol

Sorry I had to go there.

I dont know how much of a problem its really going to be. There is no such thing as an endless cycle anyway when it comes to climatology. We also dont know how much methane is trapped in the crust, or in the sea floor (large methane emmissions have occured in the past from there as well periodically).

It is certianly something to look at. (IE keep an eye on)

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

[leo9]

I hear the end of life as we know it will occur on 12/21/12, so live it up while you can, people!

So far as the economy and my advanced age allows, I do.

But see, this is the other important thing about scientific propositions: testability. There is no way to test a proposition based on prophecy... unless the innumerable previous predictions of the End can be counted as tests of the general principle of fortelling the world's future from An-Cie-Ent Prophecies, in which case it's well and truly exploded.

But a proposition based on a simple mathematical relationship can be tested by seeing whether the curve goes on heading the way it's predicted to. And if it does, you're entitled to extend it into the future with some confidence. Same as the rogue economists who extended the curve of unsupported debt and warned, a couple of years in advance, that the economy was heading for a cliff. If governments had dared to listen to them and do something about it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it was probably politically impossible for anything to be done: both the rich frauds and the suckers who thought they were getting rich would have rebelled. Any government that saw where things were heading probably judged that it was safer to just let things go smash, then nobody would blame them. And that's the method most of them are applying now.

[leo9]

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

This is true. Like the bad debt crisis, we've kept an unsustainable system going for a long time by borrowing more and more, and it's when things go wrong at once that the juggling act gets impossible.

[steelish]

So far as the economy and my advanced age allows, I do.

But see, this is the other important thing about scientific propositions: testability. There is no way to test a proposition based on prophecy... unless the innumerable previous predictions of the End can be counted as tests of the general principle of fortelling the world's future from An-Cie-Ent Prophecies, in which case it's well and truly exploded.

But a proposition based on a simple mathematical relationship can be tested by seeing whether the curve goes on heading the way it's predicted to. And if it does, you're entitled to extend it into the future with some confidence. Same as the rogue economists who extended the curve of unsupported debt and warned, a couple of years in advance, that the economy was heading for a cliff. If governments had dared to listen to them and do something about it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it was probably politically impossible for anything to be done: both the rich frauds and the suckers who thought they were getting rich would have rebelled. Any government that saw where things were heading probably judged that it was safer to just let things go smash, then nobody would blame them. And that's the method most of them are applying now.

You do realize I was being facetious, right?

[leo9]

You do realize I was being facetious, right?

:) Yeah, but I already had worked out that essay on testability, with end-times prophecies as my example, so when you gave me the cue it seemed a shame not to use it.

[steelish]

lol

[DuncanONeil]

The basic theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming does not depend on “secret” data or complicated formulae. The data are all in the public domain, and anyone with the patience can crunch the numbers and see what comes out. And over the decades a great many people have, and got the same answers, which is why they believe it. No politics, no conspiracy: it just works.

Sorry! You can not say that. Sure temperatures exist outside the scientific community. However, there is a huge but here.

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.
Now as to also creating a program that results in the same conclusion. Since the data points are being "selected" and the formula to "process" the data is being "created" drawing the conclusion you want is an essentially forgone conclusion.

The revelations regarding Manchester have done nothing more than to call their conclusions into question. And to reveal that the models are largely contrived.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history? Why is the issue of the quantity of solar radiation escaping from the planet at levels greater than the alarmists postulate, based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Seems like the planet is cooling itself!

[DuncanONeil]

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

I take it you missed the comment that the entire population of the planet could live within the borders of the state of Texas and be no more crowded that the island of Manhattan?

[denuseri]

And this would reduce the ammount of unrenewable rescources they are consuming how?

[Thorne]

I take it you missed the comment that the entire population of the planet could live within the borders of the state of Texas and be no more crowded that the island of Manhattan?
Space isn't the issue. Food is. And farm land. Regardless of how packed people get, you still have to get them the food from the farms. So that means oil, as well.

[Thorne]

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.
This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.


Now as to also creating a program that results in the same conclusion. Since the data points are being "selected" and the formula to "process" the data is being "created" drawing the conclusion you want is an essentially forgone conclusion.
Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.


Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history? Why is the issue of the quantity of solar radiation escaping from the planet at levels greater than the alarmists postulate, based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Seems like the planet is cooling itself!
Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.

[DuncanONeil]

And this would reduce the ammount of unrenewable rescources they are consuming how?

Well many people would have less far to get anywhere. The ugly wind farms that people do not like in their backyard won't be even close. The whole state of Nebraska and the Benelux can be solar collectors. Huge portions of land can be used for farming, thereby removing significant amounts of CO2. The rest can go forest doing the same thing.

But that was not why I said what I said. It was related to your comment that sounded a light like a reference to the "population bomb".

In addition the vast majority of the worlds population is regulating itself!

[DuncanONeil]

Space isn't the issue. Food is. And farm land. Regardless of how packed people get, you still have to get them the food from the farms. So that means oil, as well.

Since we would not need so many roads to get people around to large numbers of various place, why not turn much of that infrastructure into vacuum tubes for the transport of commodities. How much farm land is there if everyone is living in Texas?

[DuncanONeil]

Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.
Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?


This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.


Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.


Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.

[denuseri]

Well many people would have less far to get anywhere. The ugly wind farms that people do not like in their backyard won't be even close. The whole state of Nebraska and the Benelux can be solar collectors. Huge portions of land can be used for farming, thereby removing significant amounts of CO2. The rest can go forest doing the same thing.

But that was not why I said what I said. It was related to your comment that sounded a light like a reference to the "population bomb".

In addition the vast majority of the worlds population is regulating itself!

Is it? Just becuase Europe and the United States have negative/ homeostatic natural birth rates thanks primaraly to people waiting until later in life to have children and abortion (imigration not withstanding), does not mean the Worlds population is dropping. In fact if anything its still growing. To further the problem, new industrialized nations are emerging like China and India, with imense populations. Just imagine the drain in rescources a single country 5+ times the size of the USA and Europe combined (the two most rescource consuming areas of the world at present btw using as much as 60% of the worlds rescources at present all by themselves) will bring to the world when it gets going.

Couple that with the fact that peak oil aquisition and production was all ready reached back in the early 80's and we have a serious problem looming on the horizon.

And this is without even getting on how fast fresh water soruces will dimminish. Look at how fast lake mead allready continues to drop every year.

As for moving the entire world population to the state of texas...smh, lets attempt to be somewhat realistic here shall we.

I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say. The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase. But any doofus with a computer or access to one can look and see for themselves how the numbers are starting to stack up conserning the loss of our glaciers through the world. Something is warming up the planet, which in some ways can be a good thing, the only problem is we dont know exactly whats doing it yet, nor do we know how hot its going to get, or when it will plateue and or stop, or swing back to cooler temperatures.

[Thorne]

Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.
If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.


Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?
Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.

[leo9]

While I was away dealing with Real Life (TM) Thorne has answered most of this better than I could, but since I had the answer in my head, I'll dump it anyway...




The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.

I don't know if I have failed to explain my point clearly, or if you're simply dodging it. I'll try to make it more clear.

The basic theory of AGW is not based on a "complicated formula": it's a simple statistical relationship, and anyone with Statistics 101 can do the math and see if the results fit the theory. The data you need are atmospheric CO2, which is the same everywhere, and average global temperature, which you get from the public records of weather stations in a suitable number of locations around the world. You don't want just one, because it may not be representative (for example, the UK has been warming up over the past decades like most places, but it lags behind the global average because of the well documented weakening of the Gulf Stream,) but you don't want an impossible number; fifty or a hundred chosen at random should give a good first approximation.

None of this is hidden or difficult. One reason the vast majority of climatologists have come around to AGW is that it's so easy for them or someone they know to replicate the experiment and find it gives the same answer. It doesn't take a global conspiracy to make people believe what they can see for themselves.

The complicated fomulae come in when you try to give policy makers useful advice on what to expect year on year and country by country. Averages are not much help here, because everyone acknowledges that the effects will be very different from place to place; so we get into the field of long range weather forecasting, with all the uncertainties that this implies. BUT - and this is the important point - none of this complication affects the overall global picture, and none of the questions about it affect the fact of global AGW. Even if it were to be proved - which it certainly isn't so far - that one centre had commited outright fraud in their modeling, that would have no more bearing on the truth of AGW than the fact that the movie "Day After Tomorrow" is rubbish science.

Let me explain another way. There is a river called the Severn with a dramatically powerful tidal surge, and for decades people have been arguing over plans for a tidal power project there. Trying to predict the effect of the project on the tidal and current patterns calls for complex models and masses of data, and it wouldn't surprise me if people on both sides of the controversy had tweaked their models to predict what they want. BUT, whatever the accuracy of these models, the tide will rise and fall: the tide is a fact regardless of how its local effects are expressed or predicted. Likewise, AGW is a demonstrated fact regardless of how accurately its detailed effects have been modelled.



Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history?

Since the actual recorded temperatures have been rising for decades, I guess this is about cycles again.

Every climatologist knows about climate cycles: they've been studying them for most of a century, which is why they get so annoyed when people suggest that it's a new fact that changes everything. And as you say, the long term trend up till the last century was that the world is in a cooling phase, which is why people are so worried about the fact that the actual global temperature has been going up when the cycles should be pushing it down. It means that if we haven't got a grip on global warming by the time the cycles trough out and go into a warming phase, we'll be in real trouble.

[leo9]

But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment.

The "source" of climate data is weather stations all around the world. If you believe in a conspiracy big and powerful enough to destroy or tamper with all those records, there isn't much point trying to have a rational debate.

[leo9]

I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say.
You do realise that you have to add NASA and the Pentagon to the list of liberal lefty organisations that believe in AGW?

The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase.
That depends whose data you use, climatologists' or Big Oil's.

Basically there are two possible scenarios. (Three if you count the one that says nothing is changing, and all the stuff about melting icecaps, rising temperatures etc, is a fraud by the international communist conspiracy who've suborned all the meteorologists, naturalists and geographers in the world.)

Either the world is warming for simple physically explicable reasons which are theoretically controlable, so we could survive if we have the guts to do what's necessary.

Or the world is warming for some mysterious reason (which by a strange coincidence began when we started burning vast amounts of fossil fuels and wiping out forests) which nobody can explain or do anything about, and we might as well live it up, drive our SUVs and turn up the heating, because we're doomed anyway.

Even if the science didn't convince me, I am not a natural fatalist. We may not be able to save ourselves, but I'll always want to go down trying.

[DuncanONeil]

News souces indicate that all "other" sources are basing they data on the work done by Manchester.
As for the thermometer issue I must disagree somewhat. All of thos individual data sets produce an average on their own. Hence no need to tweek. Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?


If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.


Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.

[denuseri]

None of the above Leo, it is not an eaither or situation.

I am not in the "it isn't happening" camp.

I am in the "it is happening but the reason why is more complicated than just human population growth and industrialization" camp.

Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause. The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.

Do we as a species effect the enviroment around us?, of course we do, we have been since before we had language. Are we the sole perpetrators of global warming? No I do not believe we are alone responsibile, I believe our own contributions are just part of a much larger climatic / solar cycle.

Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.

The planet has been both much much warmer and colder at different times during our time upon it and we survived those times with little to no technological inovations at our disposal but we also had a far far exponentialy smaller population back then.

The small changes our climate is making currently if continued along current trends in and of themselves isnt such a big deal alltogether until you add in our ever increasing populations rescouce demands vs the dwindeling unrenewable rescource supply, and when you factor that in then we are going to be in a very very bad pickle soon enough.

But then even if the climate stops changing along current trends, we are still going to have a problem if we dont change sooner rather than later.

[leo9]

News souces indicate that all "other" sources are basing they data on the work done by Manchester.

While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?

And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.

[leo9]

Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause.

Climate cycles are on a downward trend and should be cooling the planet. The sunspot cycle is likewise in a phase that should be giving us less droughts and blizzards, not more. What other causes did you have in mind?


The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.
...
Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.


Population pressure and oil exhaustion are already a problem, but to be brutal, we in the rich nations have so far managed pretty successfully to make them someone else's problem. Attempts to convince the majority of Euopeans and North Americans that the rest of the world's troubles are our reponsibility as well have met a blank stare.

But we can't pay the weather or the sea to go somewhere else. So this is a problem we can't dodge, we either solve it or suffer along with the poorest.

The fact that the solutions to it will, if sensibly applied, also help with the other problems is a bonus.

[Thorne]

Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?
I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.

[DuncanONeil]

[/QUOTE]While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?[/QUOTE]I suppose I would find myself point a finger at AP. Since all the other news outlets seem to take their reports from there verbatim. Thing is when I listen to or read news reports I do not takes notes in order to convince, or lead others to that source. If that becomes necessary that the pleasure of said reading or learning becomes seriously weakened.

[/QUOTE]And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.[/QUOTE]
Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.

[DuncanONeil]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.


I think you're confusing normal atmospheric ozone, such as the ozone layer, with man made ozone, that you get from the burning of fossil fuels. "Ozone days" are, I presume, a measure of air pollution, generally caused by weather conditions holding such pollution close to the ground. You place your sensors where the pollution tends to accumulate, not out in the countryside where it will generally be always low. These measurements are for local consideration only, and are not of global interest.

[Thorne]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count, and yes I mean O3. This issue is closely related to AGW.
As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.

[leo9]

The city is wide spread but the sensors are located not throughout the city but only in places known to create a high ozone count

When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.


, and yes I mean O3.
Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?

This issue is closely related to AGW.
The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?

[steelish]

Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire.

On the contrary, smoke detectors are placed outside bedrooms so that the occupants might hear the alarm in the middle of the night, when most home fires occur.

Not that this has anything to do with the original thread...but because it was being used as an argument, I thought I would clear the air. I am a member of both a CERT and a DART team and have had fire and disaster training. During our training it was explained why smoke detectors are placed in those locations.

[DuncanONeil]

At the water's edge and not inland? Here one is on the great lake and another is placed on anther body of water. Water is naturally higher in O3 regardless of pollution. Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?



As I said, when measuring the ozone levels of pollution, that's the best place to put your sensors. Those places would be the first to show a change, either up or down, and would give you time to put out a warning. But again, these are fairly localized phenomena, more pronounced in cities with large numbers of internal combustion engines. This ozone tends to stay close to the ground and accumulate in low spots. And ozone is highly reactive, so it will "degrade" fairly quickly, especially when spread around by winds. The ozone located in the ozone layer around the planet, while chemically identical, is formed by different processes and actually performs a beneficial function. That ozone never reaches the ground, though, so I don't see how these "ozone days" that we hear about would be of any value to AGW proponents.

[DuncanONeil]

See #178!


When you are testing for something dangerous, you put the detectors where it is going to happen first. Smoke detectors are placed where smoke collects, because people want to know if there is a fire. If they wanted to be calmed and reassured, they would place the detectors wide spread around the house. The detectors wouldn't be a bit of use for warnings of fire, but they would keep people happier.

Well, yes, that's what ozone means. Stuff that comes from car exhausts etc. and causes asthma. Do you know of another meaning?
The only connection I can see is that there is an industrial lobby, similar to but much less powerful than the no-AGW one, devoted to persuading the gullible that ozone pollution is harmless. Was that what you meant?

[DuncanONeil]

It appears now the the prime arbiter of Global Warming data admits that the data does not exist!
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, says the data used to create his assessment of Global Warming is lost!
Further, he states that there has not been a single case of Global Warming since 1995.

Wonder what that is going to do for the Goreites?

[leo9]

Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?

I think we are at cross purposes. You appear to imagine that the ozone level has some relevance to AGW research, and that therefore you are exposing data manipulation on this subject.

The reason people measure ozone levels is that artificially generated ozone is a polutant. It causes sometimes life threatening asthma in susceptible people, and for this reason it is important for those at risk to know when the level is dangerously high. Therefore it is measured at locations where it may become high, because that is where the danger lies.

These measurements are supremely irrelevant to any aspect of global climate research. As Thorne noted, you may perhaps be confused by the tendency of anti-environmentalists to conflate the current concern over CO2 with the 1980s concern over ozone depeletion. The two are entirely separate issues. (Well, almost. A serious increase in ozone depletion might conceivably add to incoming solar radiation enough to have an impact on climate, but the contingency is happily remote, since we seem to have successfully limited the release of ozone depleting pollutants.) In any case, the previous concern was over loss of ozone, so environmental fraudsters would hardly be trying to exagerate the levels, leaving aside that they would be taking measurements several hundred feet too low if that were the object.

All this you could have discovered for yourself with five minutes on Google, so why do we have to keep educating you in the basics?

[leo9]

It appears now the the prime arbiter of Global Warming data admits that the data does not exist!
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, says the data used to create his assessment of Global Warming is lost!
Further, he states that there has not been a single case of Global Warming since 1995.

Whilst I do take your point that noting the source of these amazing things you tell us would reduce the entertertainment value of the news for you, you cannot expect us to take these pronouncements seriously if you can only reference them by saying you heard it somewhere and you guess they got it from AP.

There is no need to spoil your viewing pleasure by taking notes: that's one of the many things Google is for. Just trace the news item you heard, copy and paste the link, and your comments might actually carry some weight, if it turned out that the item really said what you quote.

[leo9]

On the contrary, smoke detectors are placed outside bedrooms so that the occupants might hear the alarm in the middle of the night, when most home fires occur.

Not that this has anything to do with the original thread...but because it was being used as an argument, I thought I would clear the air. I am a member of both a CERT and a DART team and have had fire and disaster training. During our training it was explained why smoke detectors are placed in those locations.

Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.

A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.

[Thorne]

At the water's edge and not inland? Here one is on the great lake and another is placed on anther body of water. Water is naturally higher in O3 regardless of pollution. Beside O3 itself is not the pollutant, so why artificially inflate the numbers with out trying for a real average?
I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.

And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.

[DuncanONeil]

I think we are at cross purposes. You appear to imagine that the ozone level has some relevance to AGW research, and that therefore you are exposing data manipulation on this subject.
I do not so think. My point is that the O3 data is itself being manipulated by choosing ONLY positions that WILL result in high O3 levels


The reason people measure ozone levels is that artificially generated ozone is a polutant. It causes sometimes life threatening asthma in susceptible people, and for this reason it is important for those at risk to know when the level is dangerously high. Therefore it is measured at locations where it may become high, because that is where the danger lies.
Measuring O3 at the shore of a Great Lake, and the edge of other bodies of water and places that may produce O3 is not a true valid indicator of the O3 levels throughout the city. The data may be accurate but by definition it is biased.


These measurements are supremely irrelevant to any aspect of global climate research. As Thorne noted, you may perhaps be confused by the tendency of anti-environmentalists to conflate the current concern over CO2 with the 1980s concern over ozone depeletion. The two are entirely separate issues. (Well, almost. A serious increase in ozone depletion might conceivably add to incoming solar radiation enough to have an impact on climate, but the contingency is happily remote, since we seem to have successfully limited the release of ozone depleting pollutants.) In any case, the previous concern was over loss of ozone, so environmental fraudsters would hardly be trying to exagerate the levels, leaving aside that they would be taking measurements several hundred feet too low if that were the object.
I know there is a difference. But as to Global Warming I suggest you check out the new things Phil Jones is saying!

[steelish]

Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.

A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.

We don't exactly place the detectors at floor level! But if you have vaulted ceilings in the living room, and normal ceiling height in the hallway outside the bedroom...the smoke detector is still placed outside the bedroom regardless of the higher ceilings elsewhere.

[DuncanONeil]

From an interview with the BBC!
I find you immediate reaction suggesting the report is made up insulting!

Further revelations by Phil Jones;


Warming in the 20th century is not unique,
There were two other recent periods,
between 1860 and the 1880s
in the forties
The planet has been cooling since 2002
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is now
Jones admits there is no consensus among climate scientists


So before I can use anything I have heard or read I have go back a research it all over again?


Whilst I do take your point that noting the source of these amazing things you tell us would reduce the entertertainment value of the news for you, you cannot expect us to take these pronouncements seriously if you can only reference them by saying you heard it somewhere and you guess they got it from AP.

There is no need to spoil your viewing pleasure by taking notes: that's one of the many things Google is for. Just trace the news item you heard, copy and paste the link, and your comments might actually carry some weight, if it turned out that the item really said what you quote.

[DuncanONeil]

In addition to outside the bedroom we are also instructed to have one on each floor to include the basement!


Which will teach me to follow my own frequently given advice, and not assume that my country's practice is universal. UK firefighters and safety organisations advise us to place detectors at high points in the ceiling, at the tops of stairs etc, with the object of making sure the smoke reaches them as soon as a fire starts. Apparently they assume the alarms are loud enough that the distance from the bedroom is less important than getting the earliest possible warning.

A reminder to all of us that what seems so logical that it must be the same everywhere, may be only a local practice.

[DuncanONeil]

That "high concentration" decision is part of the problem. I live in a city where the eastern boundary is a Great Lake. Levels of O3 are higher, at this point I can't quote a source other than a local news station, are higher in the vicinity of bodies of water. The level of concentration is not "in" the water, but in the immediate vicinity of the water. Most all of the recording stations are in such locations. But to presume that such readings have any bearing within the city confines five miles away can not be supported. Heck the ambient temperature does not remain constant over that distance!


I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.

And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.

[DuncanONeil]

Did some looking. much of the generic data on Ozone does not get terribly specific. It may take trying to find the actual data from the actual monitoring units.


I can't find any information regarding the natural concentration of ozone in water. In fact, unless the water is pure, the ozone would quickly react with any contaminants, destroying the ozone.

And ozone (O3) IS a pollutant at low levels. It can cause headaches, burning in the eyes, and respiratory irritation. People with resperatory problems already are particularly affected. So monitoring those levels is very important. And I would expect the monitoring to occur in those areas which are most likely to have high concentrations.

[leo9]

Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.

OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.

A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.

B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.

C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.

Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.

I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.

The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.

[steelish]

Oh my (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)

[Losalt]

OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.

A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.

B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.

C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.

Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.

I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.

The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.

Regarding A don't forget H2O in gas form ;)
As for B and C..
Well, we have ice samples from the last ice age (not the little one, the real one with northern europe covered in ice) where a little of the gasses of the atmosphere is caught allowing us to actually measure how it was then.
Also we can dig up the seeds of various planets to see what was growing where getting an idea about how the climate was earlier.
So to prove your point all we have to do is to compare those two ;)
And then there's trees..
The rings in them change in size depending on growing conditions if I don't remember wrong.
It's a good thing we're not limited to measuring how the weather is today ^^

For the record, this post is in support of Leo9 ;)

[steelish]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes


The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.


My conclusion...even the top scientists cannot agree, therefore why can't we take a step back and finish the investigation before spending trillions more on a project that will have profound effect on the country and our children's future?

[denuseri]

I have no problem with continuing to reaserch the real cuases of climate change.

Ive allways been a proponent of more reaserch.

As for some of the projects....well, some of the projects in question, (like reducing or eliminating our dependence on non-renewable rescources) in my opinion are still just as nessesary for the furture of our specieis as a whole regardless of the cuases of global climate trends becuase there are larger issues looming over the horizon conserning them in regards to population expansion vs resource aquisition.

Also I do believe, given sufficient time, we as humans can and will impact the enviroment in such a mannner that we will wish we did change how we conduct our stewardship of the earth sooner rather than later some day.

Additionally, I see no reason good enough to support a position that promotes polution of our enviroment soley for the sake of corporate greed without regard for the wellfare of everyone involved.

The planet certianly isnt going to give us any second chances, and I don't see a viable place to expand into floating nearby that we can just fly over too any time soon.

[steelish]

I have no problem with continuing to reaserch the real cuases of climate change.

Ive allways been a proponent of more reaserch.

As for some of the projects....well, some of the projects in question, (like reducing or eliminating our dependence on non-renewable rescources) in my opinion are still just as nessesary for the furture of our specieis as a whole regardless of the cuases of global climate trends becuase there are larger issues looming over the horizon conserning them in regards to population expansion vs resource aquisition.

Also I do believe, given sufficient time, we as humans can and will impact the enviroment in such a mannner that we will wish we did change how we conduct our stewardship of the earth sooner rather than later some day.

Additionally, I see no reason good enough to support a position that promotes polution of our enviroment soley for the sake of corporate greed without regard for the wellfare of everyone involved.

The planet certianly isnt going to give us any second chances, and I don't see a viable place to expand into floating nearby that we can just fly over too any time soon.

On all of this, I agree wholeheartedly. The project I am referring to is Cap and Trade and of course the multitude of stifling federal regulations placed upon manufacturers.

[symphony]

I beg to differ!! Top scientists do agree, science is not cut and dry and you will NEVER get an 100% concencus, I study climate and geology at university and I can tell you that 95% of scientists agree that the climate is warming and that we are either contributing or causing this. the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.

We should currently be swinging back to a cooler period due to molanchovich cycles and we arnt.

I ask you does it really matter weather there is a concencus about weather its all our fault or just partly our fault the fact is that its happening.

We must spend money now as we need to level off our emissions 2015 to prevent a 2 degree warming which would cause food shortages and mass migrations causing huge strains on people.

look it up if you dont believe me and please dont google it. Try looking in journals and scientific publications. The news doesnt speak the truth all the time now does it!

[steelish]

Maybe in the UK the news doesn't "report" on global warming/climate change, but in the US we are bombarded daily with it!

[DuncanONeil]

It is very difficult to, with any certainty, say what the actual cause is.
However, there has been no reduction in CO2. And yet Phil Jones himself has said no warming since 1995. Further he is willing to admit that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the current temperatures. In addition that the planet has been cooling since 2002.
On the basis of that is it not reasonable to presume that man is not the prime component of the current cycle of warming. With the MWP being warmer it would seem clear that man could not have caused that.

More study is needed, FROM ALL SIDE, on the subject. No research or study should be tossed aside just because some people do not like it.

As far as the "consensus", again from Phil Jones, the only consensus in the field is that there is no consensus.


OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.

A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.

B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.

C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.

Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.

I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.

The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.

[DuncanONeil]

Cap and trade is a very bad idea. Does nothing to change anything. Will do little more than raise the cost of everything. Likely put many companies out of business.

If anything we should be encouraging business. They are the ones that come up with new ideas!


On all of this, I agree wholeheartedly. The project I am referring to is Cap and Trade and of course the multitude of stifling federal regulations placed upon manufacturers.

[DuncanONeil]

Please read message #194 & 195!!


I beg to differ!! Top scientists do agree, science is not cut and dry and you will NEVER get an 100% concencus, I study climate and geology at university and I can tell you that 95% of scientists agree that the climate is warming and that we are either contributing or causing this. the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.

We should currently be swinging back to a cooler period due to molanchovich cycles and we arnt.

I ask you does it really matter weather there is a concencus about weather its all our fault or just partly our fault the fact is that its happening.

We must spend money now as we need to level off our emissions 2015 to prevent a 2 degree warming which would cause food shortages and mass migrations causing huge strains on people.

look it up if you dont believe me and please dont google it. Try looking in journals and scientific publications. The news doesnt speak the truth all the time now does it!

[steelish]

Here (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/DDJT187GK9.DTL) is a claim that global warming is causing an increase in fog around LA

and interestingly enough, here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html) is a claim (a mere 7 months later) that global warming is causing a DECREASE in the fog surrounding LA


Give me a break

[steelish]

cap and trade is a very bad idea. Does nothing to change anything. Will do little more than raise the cost of everything. Likely put many companies out of business.

If anything we should be encouraging business. They are the ones that come up with new ideas!

exactly

[symphony]

i did read them, thats why i posted.
When did i say that they diddnt report in the uk. blatently i said they did, but it is not always advisable to believe it without checking their sources... but i see im not going to get anywhere, and im wasting my time.

[steelish]

the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

[leo9]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE
And this shows just how wrong journalists can get it when they try to translate scientific language into journalese without understanding. (I'm doing Mr. Petre the courtesy of assuming it was an honest mistake and not deliberate distortion.)

If you read the actual text of the interview (which is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm , and I am following normal fair-use practioce, as well as good netiquette, by giving a link rather than cut and paste the whole text) you will find that what he says is that the increase in temperature (which is clear in the figures) is not quite "statistically signignificant". Which is to say that even though it's right there in the data, as a conscientious scientist he has to allow that it might be pure coincidence that every successive reading is higher than the last. That is a completely different thing from saying there has been "no warming", which would obviously be nonsense with the rising figures there for all to see.

The problem seems to be that the media, which wouldn't give the job of football correspondent to someone who never learnt the rules, happily give the job of "science correspondent" to journos who flunked Science 101.


Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

Again, this sounds most impressive if you don't have the actual facts available. If you bother to check:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
you will find that, after the hooraw suggesting that all the weather records in the world had been somehow deleted by one obscure British scientist, what's actually gone missing is the readings from a bunch of weather stations in northern China. (And if the Chinese don't have copies, they're not the bureaucratic state I take them for.)


Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Hold the front page! A journalist has just discovered what's in every elementary climatological textbook! World shaking admission!

It's this sort of invincible ignorance that makes the discussion so difficult. One has to educate people from scratch while they try to find a catch in everything one explains.

My conclusion...even the top scientists cannot agree, therefore why can't we take a step back and finish the investigation before spending trillions more on a project that will have profound effect on the country and our children's future?
Because in the meantime the disaster is already happening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/feb/17/climate-change-impacts-tajikistan

And while climate change deniers were having lots of fun about the blizzards in Washington, the Winter Olympics have been having to truck in snow so the ski slopes won't be grass.

The investigation is finished, it was finished years ago. It's the political fight that is never going to be finished so long as Big Oil has a million to spare for PR.

[steelish]

The actual text (which I did read) also states that the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 & 1975-2009 all had similar warming trends. These are things the mainstream media fails to report.

[leo9]

The actual text (which I did read) also states that the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 & 1975-2009 all had similar warming trends.
Interesting, thanks for noting that. 1860 fits the theory, but I didn't realise they had pushed the data back that far.

These are things the mainstream media fails to report.
The BBC will be fascinated to learn that they are now a fringe medium.

[leo9]

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

Except for the Murdoch outlets, which report it as if 50% of the scientists disagree. As I have observed elsewhere, the abysmal standard of science reporting - which is almost entirely written from the point of view of politics, with zero concern for facts - on all sides of the media, is part of the problem.

[denuseri]

Thats becuase there is allmost no pre published peer review or scource checking going on anymore (for journalists) and the journalists (sophists by any other name) not to mention college proffessors and more than a few scientists (keep peer review but still no ethics) are more worried about alcaim, ratings, money and pushing their own political social agendas, then they are about ethics and objectivity.

[steelish]

Interesting, thanks for noting that. 1860 fits the theory, but I didn't realise they had pushed the data back that far.
The BBC will be fascinated to learn that they are now a fringe medium.

in 1860 there were no SUVs...no industrialization. It "fits the theory" hmmm?

[MMI]

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain can be traced back to the 1600s if not earlier. By the mid 19th century, it was well under way, and the steady growth of factories, heavy industry and steel mills in rapidly developing urban areas all had their effect on the atmosphere. In larger cities, the English fog had become the smog for which the country was once so notorious. No heavy traffic as such, but coal fired steam engines of all kinds were to be found, while gas supplies, when they began to be distributed throughout towns and cities, did not take the form of "clean" natural gas, but were made from coal, wood and other similar materials.

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

[Thorne]

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

While that would have had localized effects, certainly, it's doubtful that there would have been global effects, at least the kinds of effects we are seeing now. There simply weren't enough industrialized cities for that.

[MMI]

Yeah. I think you're right.

I withdraw that suggestion.

[denuseri]

Burning fires of allmost any kind release carbon into the air peeps.

And lets not forget the additonal build up can be gradually accumulated, though even with all the open pit burning that was done for strip mining from the 17th century until the 19th took over with oil, I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle.

Its probabely a combination of solar positional, /distance and intensity, volcanic emmissions (both terestrial and subsurface benthic kinds), sea floor particulate release, and human interaction.

Which is of course besides the point.

Even if we don't know whats cuasing it to happen, or how much we have contributed; we still need to stop doing the things that are going to surely fuck us and our posterity down the road now while we can.

[steelish]

Don't forget that those "warming periods" were followed by cooler times. During the early 70s we were all warned that the next ice age was coming.

Florida is in it's coldest winter in history, record snowfalls in DC, extreme cold in the Northeast and midwest, etc. Seems like it might be a cooling trend starting...maybe? Won't Al Gore feel foolish if the next 10 to 15 years are cooler.

[denuseri]

All while the glaciers have gotten smaller than they have been in thousands of years and at a faster rate than any evidence we have today of their history can account for.

[steelish]

Actually, there is evidence that the glaciers have gotten smaller before in history, then built back up. I will hunt for it.

(and I am speaking of evidence that a scientist submitted...not something that someone suspects)

[steelish]

Another thing to remember...all of earth's land was once one giant continent, and ice caps were almost everywhere. The giant continent broke up and drifted apart over millions of years - ice caps formed on the north and south pole regions.

Knowing this, why is it so hard for people to believe that what we are experiencing is a natural part of the earth's life? The glaciers you speak of have been melting for over 100 years while glaciers on the opposite pole are INCREASING.

I just think it's very presumptuous of us to assume it's us causing all this when in the earth's life, we've only been here for the blink of an eye so far.

Do I think we could treat the planet better? YES. But that does not mean I think the US should destroy it's future on a policy that won't make a difference because it WON'T reduce greenhouse gases even a portion of what they claim it will - yet it will cost trillions of dollars to instill.

[denuseri]

Again, the glaciers are not found only on the poles, and the reductions I am speaking of are world wide and they have been more rapid in over all reduction than ever before. Way more rapid. Previous changes have for the most part taken place over thousands of years (except the changes shown to come from stellar impacts). This change has been far far quicker (like recorded within most of our lifetimes).

Also, I am not saying that we as of yet know what extent of the recent rapid warming trend is due directly to humanity. Or when and if its going to tilt back the other way. So far its really showing signs of hitting a complete melting progression point and not going back into some kind of cooling mode.

That point is moot anyway. We have to adapt to the enviroment and be ready to adapt rapidly or face the consequences.

I fail to see how converting our power and transportation infrastructures away from ones based on unrenewable fossil fuels that are allready showing signs of dwindling (and have been since we reached peak production and aquisition levels in the early 80's) to more self sufficient means is going to be a bad thing for anyone other than greedy global corperations (mainly big oil and coal) who dont give a dam about us as consumers anyway only about our money.

Changing ahead of time is going to be key. We sure are not going to be able to change once its too late. And when china and india start really sucking on the rescources which is coming sooner than you think, its allready starting, we will be wishing we did something now rather than have to scrape along asking for handouts later.

[steelish]

It's funny how much "Big Oil" is vilified in the media when you look at where the industry actually ranks in terms of net profit margin.

Evil Big Oil comes in ranked in 56th place with a 9.5% margin. That puts them behind such industries as Evil Mutual Funds, Evil Publishers, Evil Long-Distance Carriers, Evil Software, Evil Shipping, Evil Silver, Evil Copper, Evil Gold, Evil Drug Manufacturers, Evil Regional Banks, Evil Rail-roads, Evil Medical Supplies, Evil General Entertainment, Evil Footwear, Evil Resorts and Casinos, and Evil Education Services.

Yes, we need to come up with alternative energy sources, but realistically, that day is a long way off. How about we look at supplementing oil while working on alternatives? If we can gradually increase our reliance on clean sources of energy that are both economical and efficient, then the free markets will do the rest. Our reliance on oil will fall on its own, with absolutely no need for government subsidies, taxes or policies that attempt to "influence" the right decision but inevitably usher in the wrong one. Corn ethanol, anyone?

[denuseri]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative. Sugar cane would be better. Though nieather are nearly as good as hydrogen.

And I didnt say all business were bad, but faceless corperations are greedy.

[DuncanONeil]

When even the Guru of AGW says that the only consensus is that there is no consensus, why is it that the AGW crowd continues its mantra of gloom and doom? Why do they continue to trot out draconian measures to alter something that they do not yet understand?
This is like the Government demanding that the auto industry, I'm sorry the auto division of Government, reduce fuel consumption in cars. How did they do that? Mandate a fleet wide average, without consideration to any other business concern. The result? Not fuel efficient cars people buy, but a large segment of the fleet that has a high, tested, fuel consumption and everything else. What do the people buy? Largely everything else. Market forces would be a better engine of innovation that a mandate from some outsider. The Smart Car is making inroads in the US for a number of reasons, I can give you mine. I am not currently in the market for a car but the price, economy, safety, and difference of the car is large in my mind. Although I really would prefer one of the companies other models. Provided the EPA doesn't screw it up. When I first found the Smart it was reported at 60 mpg, by the time it passed US regs it was a mere 40 mpg.
Wandered a bit at the end there!

i did read them, thats why i posted.
When did i say that they diddnt report in the uk. blatently i said they did, but it is not always advisable to believe it without checking their sources... but i see im not going to get anywhere, and im wasting my time.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

And I think the ratio is not quite so far apart. Nor do we know which portion of the ratio applies to which side!

[DuncanONeil]

I did read the text of the interview. I also have a modicum of understanding of scientific methods and numbers.
Basically Mr Jones sounded a lot like a lawyer in his answers. They all came across like; "yes, but ..."
In other words having to admit the truth, but trying to mitigate the damage to themselves.

In part you are correct about generic weather data. But in terms of a conclusion drawn from a study, or experiment, your are off base. If an experiment is conducted, and result arrived at, the rule of repeatable is not predicated on start all over from scratch. Some other person is to be able to, with the data, or materials, used reproduce the result. In this case if the missing data was from China one can not reproduce the results of East Anglia, as you do not know where in China to look. I know! I know! Your position is to just go get data and run your own analysis. But people have done that and achieved different results. That is the issue here. What kind of scientist makes little effort to protect all aspects of his data for peer review. Don't you find that a bit suspicious?

I note you make no reference to Mr Jones admission that the planet has been cooling since 2002. Even though that is a small number statistically, you claimed that the mere fact of an increasing number is enough validity to claim a disastrous increase in global temperature, yet choose to ignore the opposite data. Shows a disposition to believe a certain outcome. Kind of like a high school project. No project is permitted to disprove a hypothesis, all projects must prove hypotheses true. Not how science really works!
An open mind is a prerequsite for scientific study!


And this shows just how wrong journalists can get it when they try to translate scientific language into journalese without understanding. (I'm doing Mr. Petre the courtesy of assuming it was an honest mistake and not deliberate distortion.)

If you read the actual text of the interview (which is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm , and I am following normal fair-use practioce, as well as good netiquette, by giving a link rather than cut and paste the whole text) you will find that what he says is that the increase in temperature (which is clear in the figures) is not quite "statistically signignificant". Which is to say that even though it's right there in the data, as a conscientious scientist he has to allow that it might be pure coincidence that every successive reading is higher than the last. That is a completely different thing from saying there has been "no warming", which would obviously be nonsense with the rising figures there for all to see.

The problem seems to be that the media, which wouldn't give the job of football correspondent to someone who never learnt the rules, happily give the job of "science correspondent" to journos who flunked Science 101.

Again, this sounds most impressive if you don't have the actual facts available. If you bother to check:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
you will find that, after the hooraw suggesting that all the weather records in the world had been somehow deleted by one obscure British scientist, what's actually gone missing is the readings from a bunch of weather stations in northern China. (And if the Chinese don't have copies, they're not the bureaucratic state I take them for.)
Hold the front page! A journalist has just discovered what's in every elementary climatological textbook! World shaking admission!

It's this sort of invincible ignorance that makes the discussion so difficult. One has to educate people from scratch while they try to find a catch in everything one explains.
Because in the meantime the disaster is already happening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/feb/17/climate-change-impacts-tajikistan

And while climate change deniers were having lots of fun about the blizzards in Washington, the Winter Olympics have been having to truck in snow so the ski slopes won't be grass.

The investigation is finished, it was finished years ago. It's the political fight that is never going to be finished so long as Big Oil has a million to spare for PR.

[DuncanONeil]

Did not quite realize how extensive his holdings were.
Most of them are without the US.
But there are a few here that actually fall with in the purview of MSM.

Aside from that many of the corporate heads of the rest of the MSM outlets come down on the conservative side of the spectrum, yet the news produced is often not.

Zero concern for facts? On all sides? So you take the position that the right lies, yet you choose to believe reports from the left? In spite of the assertion that they all have "zero concern for the facts". Do you write for Al Gore?


Except for the Murdoch outlets, which report it as if 50% of the scientists disagree. As I have observed elsewhere, the abysmal standard of science reporting - which is almost entirely written from the point of view of politics, with zero concern for facts - on all sides of the media, is part of the problem.

[DuncanONeil]

Then how do you account for the apparent cooling after 1880?


The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain can be traced back to the 1600s if not earlier. By the mid 19th century, it was well under way, and the steady growth of factories, heavy industry and steel mills in rapidly developing urban areas all had their effect on the atmosphere. In larger cities, the English fog had become the smog for which the country was once so notorious. No heavy traffic as such, but coal fired steam engines of all kinds were to be found, while gas supplies, when they began to be distributed throughout towns and cities, did not take the form of "clean" natural gas, but were made from coal, wood and other similar materials.

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

[DuncanONeil]

I do not always agree with what you say but even when I do you method of stating is by far the most civilized.

Now you said; "I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle." But it seems that such a statement no longer fits the facts at hand. The premiere AGW guru Mr Jones has admitted that the planet is experiencing a cooling trend in existence since 2002. Greenhouse gases are supposed to trap extra-planetary radiation within the atmosphere. Yet there have been reports that a increase in the rate of radiation escaping the atmosphere is being recorded.


Burning fires of allmost any kind release carbon into the air peeps.

And lets not forget the additonal build up can be gradually accumulated, though even with all the open pit burning that was done for strip mining from the 17th century until the 19th took over with oil, I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle.

Its probabely a combination of solar positional, /distance and intensity, volcanic emmissions (both terestrial and subsurface benthic kinds), sea floor particulate release, and human interaction.

Which is of course besides the point.

Even if we don't know whats cuasing it to happen, or how much we have contributed; we still need to stop doing the things that are going to surely fuck us and our posterity down the road now while we can.

[DuncanONeil]

However those very glaciers are remnants of the last ice age! Remember how Greenland got its name? Even that was after the last ice age. It should be clear that these things as well are on some cycle that is currently beyond our ken.


All while the glaciers have gotten smaller than they have been in thousands of years and at a faster rate than any evidence we have today of their history can account for.

[DuncanONeil]

"Again, the glaciers are not found only on the poles, and the reductions I am speaking of are world wide and they have been more rapid in over all reduction than ever before. Way more rapid. Previous changes have for the most part taken place over thousands of years (except the changes shown to come from stellar impacts). This change has been far far quicker (like recorded within most of our lifetimes)."
We do not really know that. That is taking the axiom; "history begins when you are born", to the extreme. The simplest refutation is the Vikings and Greenland! The Norse settlements along the southwestern coast eventually disappeared after about 500 years. That is very rapid action for the planet!


Again, the glaciers are not found only on the poles, and the reductions I am speaking of are world wide and they have been more rapid in over all reduction than ever before. Way more rapid. Previous changes have for the most part taken place over thousands of years (except the changes shown to come from stellar impacts). This change has been far far quicker (like recorded within most of our lifetimes).

Also, I am not saying that we as of yet know what extent of the recent rapid warming trend is due directly to humanity. Or when and if its going to tilt back the other way. So far its really showing signs of hitting a complete melting progression point and not going back into some kind of cooling mode.

That point is moot anyway. We have to adapt to the enviroment and be ready to adapt rapidly or face the consequences.

I fail to see how converting our power and transportation infrastructures away from ones based on unrenewable fossil fuels that are allready showing signs of dwindling (and have been since we reached peak production and aquisition levels in the early 80's) to more self sufficient means is going to be a bad thing for anyone other than greedy global corperations (mainly big oil and coal) who dont give a dam about us as consumers anyway only about our money.

Changing ahead of time is going to be key. We sure are not going to be able to change once its too late. And when china and india start really sucking on the rescources which is coming sooner than you think, its allready starting, we will be wishing we did something now rather than have to scrape along asking for handouts later.

[DuncanONeil]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative. Sugar cane would be better. Though nieather are nearly as good as hydrogen.

And I didnt say all business were bad, but faceless corperations are greedy.

The data does not support the claim that "faceless corperations (sic) are greedy"

[denuseri]

What data? I see no data to support that they are not.

If any thing I see them (big oil and coal) pulling in reccord profits, while the costs to the consummers does nothing but rise until eaither the government steps in or the people simpley cant afford to buy anymore and then and only then do they relinquish thier strangle hold.

[steelish]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative.

No...it's not. But the government in their infinite wisdom decided it WAS and started to subsidize corn farmers that were growing corn for ethanol. What happened? The price of corn at produce departments skyrocketed, the price of beef and chicken went up due to the lack of grain for feed. It effected so much that the government didn't think of. That's the problem - they jump to solutions that aren't well thought out.

[denuseri]

I agree that the governemnts of the world will need near consensus and would benifit from taking the nessesary time after having entered extended consultation with multiple scientific sources as how best to solve the issues that will be facing our posterity and avoid seeking short term political gains.

In fact I have never said otherwise.

[DuncanONeil]

Oil company profits: A perspective
Earnings, Revenues, Profits (Billions) for selected companies, recent quarter, 2005
Source: Bloomberg News, reported in AAPG Explorer Dec. 2005
Company Net Profit Revenue Profit Margin
Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5 33%
Microsoft $3.1 $9.7 32%
Coca-Cola $1.3 $6.0 21%
Procter & Gamble $2.0 $14.8 14%
General Electric $4.7 $41.6 11%
ExxonMobil $9.9 $92.6 11%
ConocoPhillips $3.8 $48.7 8%
IBM $1.5 $21.5 7%
Chevron $3.6 $51.1 7%
Wal-Mart $2.8 $76.8 4%
Oil industry average profit margin is about 8.2%; (3rd Q. '05)
for all US industry, the average is about 6.8%.
Profits in the oil industry were easily outpaced by those of the
Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Household Products, Software, Telecommunications,
Semiconductors, Consumer Services, and Food, Beverage and Tobacco sectors.


What data? I see no data to support that they are not.

If any thing I see them (big oil and coal) pulling in reccord profits, while the costs to the consummers does nothing but rise until eaither the government steps in or the people simpley cant afford to buy anymore and then and only then do they relinquish thier strangle hold.

[DuncanONeil]

I live in Wisconsin. When the Ethanol Mandate went into effect I caught a farmer on a call in show.
He was receiving $1.25 per bushel of corn. He had told his wife that it was their last year. He was giving up! The mandate announcement immediately jumped the price to over $4.00 per bushel! He no longer needed to quit. But that is not the price only for corn into ethanol, but corn in general. Meaning that everything that uses corn has an concomitant increase in cost and hence price to us.


No...it's not. But the government in their infinite wisdom decided it WAS and started to subsidize corn farmers that were growing corn for ethanol. What happened? The price of corn at produce departments skyrocketed, the price of beef and chicken went up due to the lack of grain for feed. It effected so much that the government didn't think of. That's the problem - they jump to solutions that aren't well thought out.

[DuncanONeil]

Ain't gonna happen!

Government, lately ANY Government is of the opinion that what they "know" and "believe" is of more import than anything anyone else knows!


I agree that the governemnts of the world will need near consensus and would benifit from taking the nessesary time after having entered extended consultation with multiple scientific sources as how best to solve the issues that will be facing our posterity and avoid seeking short term political gains.

In fact I have never said otherwise.

[steelish]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative.

No...it's not. But the government in their infinite wisdom decided it WAS and incentivized farmers to chase the money and use their crops for ethanol production instead of food production. That led to a full one-quarter of America's corn crop being used for ethanol, which meant there wasn't enough corn left over for food. That led to increased prices on a slew of things that rely on corn (like beef and chicken due to the shortage in corn feed). It drove the price of other crops higher as well because farmers began to plant as much corn as possible, at the expense of soybeans, wheat, and other grains.

But all of those problems cover only the subsidy side of corn ethanol - the functionality of it is what really makes this experiment a historic debacle.

Corn ethanol is 30% less efficient than gasoline and far less efficient than its sugar-based ethanol cousin. Translation: it takes more energy to make corn-based ethanol than other fuels. Not only that, but a University of Minnesota study found that corn ethanol is actually worse for the environment than regular gas. And our genius government to threw $3 billion at it in 2007, an amount that represented 76% of all renewable-energy tax credits.

[steelish]

I agree that the governemnts of the world will need near consensus and would benifit from taking the nessesary time after having entered extended consultation with multiple scientific sources as how best to solve the issues that will be facing our posterity and avoid seeking short term political gains.

In fact I have never said otherwise.

I agree with DuncanONeil...this will NEVER happen.

Let's say for instance that the extended consultation with multiple scientific sources has occurred. No matter what the heads of governments are told is the best course of action, it is virtually impossible that all of them will agree to the same plan of action. A smaller, third-world type nation is going to feel like its "big brothers" are taking advantage. Some countries will feel like the world powers (US, UK, China, Japan, etc) created the mess so why should they have to do ANYTHING to help clean it up? Heck, even the world powers won't agree on things.

[oww-that-hurt]

Here in Montana, USA, we have a place named Glacier National Park. The melting of the glaciers is well documented and studied here. It is estimated that by 2030 the last of them will gone, only to have a few small snow fields that are slow to melt before the next winter because they are in the shadows of the peaks.

Every indication is that the rapid increase in melting rates is due to global warming. Glacier core samples have accurate record keeping of atmospheric events. Geologic evidence of their withdrawal rates changing is documented by the lichen which grow at a certain rate and set up new 'house-keeping' on rocks as they become available. Since we humans began messing up the balance of things, the lichen are able to spread at a faster than ever rate because so much more bare rock is available to them.

[steelish]

Here in Montana, USA, we have a place named Glacier National Park. The melting of the glaciers is well documented and studied here. It is estimated that by 2030 the last of them will gone, only to have a few small snow fields that are slow to melt before the next winter because they are in the shadows of the peaks.

Every indication is that the rapid increase in melting rates is due to global warming. Glacier core samples have accurate record keeping of atmospheric events. Geologic evidence of their withdrawal rates changing is documented by the lichen which grow at a certain rate and set up new 'house-keeping' on rocks as they become available. Since we humans began messing up the balance of things, the lichen are able to spread at a faster than ever rate because so much more bare rock is available to them.

No doubt that glaciers retreat in places. In yet other places there is growth (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/), and um...more growth (http://newsbusters.org/node/13798). Here (http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm) is a list of growing glaciers. Yet mainstream media does not report any of this.

[steelish]

Not to mention this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece) little tidbit of information...when was the media going to report it?

[oww-that-hurt]

steelish, thanks for the interesting links.

I got a kick out the one that said Glacier's glaciers were on the 'verge' of regrowing just because of a little snowstorm. In an average year that area can measure snow depth in yards.

As of yesterday we in the Bitterroot Mountains are at 55% normal snow pack for this season. I can stand in my backyard (in the sunshine) and easily see a lot of bare soil at 8,000' and lots of bare patches over 9,000'. We are in the area of 150 miles south of Glacier Park.

About the local media here EVER reporting something accurate and timely will just not happen if there is even the slightest possibility that something about may not be politically correct. Thanks to the internet we can grab papers and university departments and on and on all over the world.

End of soap box.

[DuncanONeil]

The glaciers have retreated before! So why is it such a trauma event now? Of course if it is a desire to terminate the use of oil, and any fossil fuel, the retreat of the glaciers is a convenient issue to achieve the end of preventing man from using fossil fuels. The green folk that have been around forever have only that as their agenda. And will use any natural occurring event if it can be made to help them.
Man has, by human standards, been around for some time. During that time the planet has been warmer than now, and colder. By your estimation the existance of the Sahara is man's fault!


Here in Montana, USA, we have a place named Glacier National Park. The melting of the glaciers is well documented and studied here. It is estimated that by 2030 the last of them will gone, only to have a few small snow fields that are slow to melt before the next winter because they are in the shadows of the peaks.

Every indication is that the rapid increase in melting rates is due to global warming. Glacier core samples have accurate record keeping of atmospheric events. Geologic evidence of their withdrawal rates changing is documented by the lichen which grow at a certain rate and set up new 'house-keeping' on rocks as they become available. Since we humans began messing up the balance of things, the lichen are able to spread at a faster than ever rate because so much more bare rock is available to them.

[DuncanONeil]

Not to mention this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece) little tidbit of information...when was the media going to report it?

When the information about Mr. Jones of East Anglia came out it was not widely reported. I checked there was noting about his faults on ABC, CBS, AP, CNN, or any of the other mainstream outlets!

[steelish]

I got a kick out the one that said Glacier's glaciers were on the 'verge' of regrowing just because of a little snowstorm. In an average year that area can measure snow depth in yards.

Glaciers where? Glacier's glaciers? Sorry, I just wanted to know which one you were pinpointing.

During my research on posting here I've also seen photos of people standing at glaciers that show NO MELTING at all since 1998. In the photos you can see a horizontal line in the ice showing the exact time melting stopped and new ice formed.

The earth has been around approximately 4.55 billion years. Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 165 million years. Huge volcanos belched sulfuric acid into the sky during the entire Jurassic Period and well into the Cretaceous Period. Homo Sapiens have been on earth for a mere 100,000 years - only since 1913 has large scale industrial factories existed (a mere 97 years). In 97 years we humans have effected the entire planet so much that we've changed global climate????

[DuncanONeil]

Am currently reviewing material on the Little Ice Age. May seem out of place but we are talking glaciers.
This was a period of cold last four to five hundred years where glaciers advanced. (temperatures about four degrees cooler than now)
Prior to that was the Medieval Warm Period. Again several hundred years, with temperatures four to seven degrees above the so called norm.
Begs the question how do we know the same is not happening now?


Glaciers where? Glacier's glaciers? Sorry, I just wanted to know which one you were pinpointing.

During my research on posting here I've also seen photos of people standing at glaciers that show NO MELTING at all since 1998. In the photos you can see a horizontal line in the ice showing the exact time melting stopped and new ice formed.

The earth has been around approximately 4.55 billion years. Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 165 million years. Huge volcanos belched sulfuric acid into the sky during the entire Jurassic Period and well into the Cretaceous Period. Homo Sapiens have been on earth for a mere 100,000 years - only since 1913 has large scale industrial factories existed (a mere 97 years). In 97 years we humans have effected the entire planet so much that we've changed global climate????

[steelish]

Am currently reviewing material on the Little Ice Age. May seem out of place but we are talking glaciers.
This was a period of cold last four to five hundred years where glaciers advanced. (temperatures about four degrees cooler than now)
Prior to that was the Medieval Warm Period. Again several hundred years, with temperatures four to seven degrees above the so called norm.
Begs the question how do we know the same is not happening now?


I agree with you...that is the point I am trying to make in my posts. We have only been around for 100,000 years...and it's only been the last 97 years in which we've had the type of industrialization that people claim "causes global climate change" or "global warming".

I find it hard to believe that in 97 (or even 200) years, that we (humans) brought about worldwide climatic change to a planet that is 4.55 billion years old and has withstood much worse than what we've thrown at it.

[DuncanONeil]

And the reported varience between Ice Age and Warm Period is four to seven degrees either side of a "norm".

And for those of you that insist on it this is from the folks at National Geographic!


I agree with you...that is the point I am trying to make in my posts. We have only been around for 100,000 years...and it's only been the last 97 years in which we've had the type of industrialization that people claim "causes global climate change" or "global warming".

I find it hard to believe that in 97 (or even 200) years, that we (humans) brought about worldwide climatic change to a planet that is 4.55 billion years old and has withstood much worse than what we've thrown at it.

[denuseri]

The same National Geographic that is saying this on thier website?

"Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.

We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon.

What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountains—hangs in the balance.

Greenhouse effect

The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse.

First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, “greenhouse” gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.

Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth.

Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.

Aren't temperature changes natural?

The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone.

However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally absorbed. As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to develop within a consistent climate.

Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El Niño, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles.

Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades.

Why is this a concern?

The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted back and forth between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.

As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006."

PS: Here is a link in case anyone decides to have a hissy over the quotes authenticity.


http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html