Climategate

[IAN 2411]

Wiscoman, with respect read about earth cycle.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...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 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

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.



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.



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/a...snow-ice.shtml)

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

Still not a fact.



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 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.