Global Warming

[TheNiche]

Let's say you're right, and humans are not a cause... Then the worst possible outcome is that we will live a world with less green house gas emissions (we'll have cleaner cars, airplanes, power plants, etc.) If we're wrong... then it would be too late to act... In fact, there is some consensus out there now that it is already too late.

'Let's say who is right', that humans are not a cause? Most folks that are critical of GW policy argue from a position of ignorance rather than presumption. We accept that humans may be the cause, one of a plurality of causes, or perhaps not significantly impactful.

It is even plausible that to the extent that GW may be caused by human activity, it may be more beneficial than hurtful to different nations, different ecosystems, or even to the well-being of the human species as a whole. Not all climate change is necessarily bad; what could make it bad would be if changes were episodic and catastrophic, as opposed to gradual. For instance, the IPCC says that sea level rise is likely to continue at close to the rate of the last hundred years, but certain political interests portray it as being something that will wipe out cities, displacing many millions of people...but if that is to happen over the course of several generations, I really don't give a rat's ass.

Let's say that we have sufficient data to project the probability of climate changes of various sort and to estimate the damage or benefit that may result. Say that we want to take out an insurance policy against the damage? What are we willing to pay? And in what form should the payment be made? Should we cut back on our CO2 emissions, or would it be more in our interests to develop infrastructure that is better adapted to a changed climate? Or is the change going to come so slowly that we don't even really have to worry about our built environment because it will have been necessary to rebuild infrastructure once or twice over before a changing climate would require any kind of adaptive modifications to the design? Or are the adverse consequences so far out in the future that we just don't care enough to pay for their prevention? And of course, how do you cope with the certainty that there will be technological advances? Do you assume them away? Or is it more likely that they'll override every other factor?

The bottom line is that I refuse to trust anybody who thinks they know what is in store for the next ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred years. There are too many variables, including those that we don't even know about yet. You, who presumptuously lay claim to certainty, are at best disignenuous and at worst a [bleep].

Another thing: I'm tired of seeing the word "consensus" being misused in political rhetoric. Stop that!

[dbigtex56]

The bottom line is that I refuse to trust anybody who thinks they know what is in store for the next ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred years. There are too many variables, including those that we don't even know about yet. You, who presumptuously lay claim to certainty, are at best disignenuous and at worst a [bleep].

Another thing: I'm tired of seeing the word "consensus" being misused in political rhetoric. Stop that!

The consensus is that people who profess no regard for or obligation to future generations are, at best, sociopathic, and at worst...well, sociopathic.

[CDeb]

The consensus is that people who profess no regard for or obligation to future generations are, at best, sociopathic, and at worst...well, sociopathic.

Which is how you can describe the "just do something now, dammit!" school of thought. They do not regard how the costs of their "solutions" will impact future generations or if the benefit of those "solutions" even approaches the massive costs.

[BryanS]

Every single word in the IPCC report may, in fact, be correct. But their winning what is largely a political prize is absolutely zero evidence of that.

Yeah, it's pretty responsible to cripple the world economy just so we're "better safe than sorry."

I submit that it's much more responsible to be sure that the "scientific debate" isn't merely a political statement in drag before we spend untold billions on "solutions" that won't stop the warming* anyway.

* Warming which appears to have been on hiatus for the last decade or so.

You're right. Nobel prizes are a dime a dozen, given to self-serving political bodies/individuals such as Mother Teresa. She didn't deserve it.

Spending untold billions... We should do it now... because we can replace/replenish money, over time. If we wait too long... no amount of money or effort will save us. Untold billions now will advance our pursuit of green energy, employ thousands of people, and loosen the grip that oil companies and third world dictators presently have on us. I would invest the money.

10 years means nothing. This problem was studied, in depth, spanning thousands and thousands of years, by a body of high knowledgeable individuals that no other body, to date, has been able to put forward counter evidence that can withstand the same test/rigors and scientific process standards of the IPCC work.

[BryanS]

'Let's say who is right', that humans are not a cause? Most folks that are critical of GW policy argue from a position of ignorance rather than presumption. We accept that humans may be the cause, one of a plurality of causes, or perhaps not significantly impactful.

It is even plausible that to the extent that GW may be caused by human activity, it may be more beneficial than hurtful to different nations, different ecosystems, or even to the well-being of the human species as a whole. Not all climate change is necessarily bad; what could make it bad would be if changes were episodic and catastrophic, as opposed to gradual. For instance, the IPCC says that sea level rise is likely to continue at close to the rate of the last hundred years, but certain political interests portray it as being something that will wipe out cities, displacing many millions of people...but if that is to happen over the course of several generations, I really don't give a rat's ass.

Let's say that we have sufficient data to project the probability of climate changes of various sort and to estimate the damage or benefit that may result. Say that we want to take out an insurance policy against the damage? What are we willing to pay? And in what form should the payment be made? Should we cut back on our CO2 emissions, or would it be more in our interests to develop infrastructure that is better adapted to a changed climate? Or is the change going to come so slowly that we don't even really have to worry about our built environment because it will have been necessary to rebuild infrastructure once or twice over before a changing climate would require any kind of adaptive modifications to the design? Or are the adverse consequences so far out in the future that we just don't care enough to pay for their prevention? And of course, how do you cope with the certainty that there will be technological advances? Do you assume them away? Or is it more likely that they'll override every other factor?

The bottom line is that I refuse to trust anybody who thinks they know what is in store for the next ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred years. There are too many variables, including those that we don't even know about yet. You, who presumptuously lay claim to certainty, are at best disignenuous and at worst a [bleep].

Another thing: I'm tired of seeing the word "consensus" being misused in political rhetoric. Stop that!

Of course you don't... because you don't have to worry about yours - in your lifetime! Spoken like a true anti global warming enthusiast.

I lay no claims to anything. I am taking a position in an argument. Nothing I've said isn't what you've heard from others on this issue.

You're just going to have to get used to being tired then. Because no other body, no other respected, vigorously vetted, and serious scientific consensus - to the contrary - is out there. When such consensus emerges, I, unlike your half of the crowd, won't be pounding the sand claiming that such work is politically slanted simply because I don't agree with the politics of its spokesman. I'd like to hear the facts. I'd like to go see the movie to see where the "other side" is coming from. So far, nothing (other than noise) has been presented to advance the anti-GW position.

[20thStDad]

Go read post #6 again, from an actual meteorologist. It has no political slant, only a scientific conclusion. The leftists don't go after GW so vehemently because they actually understand or trust any science, it's completely political.

Mother Nature is going to put everyone in their place sooner or later, and there won't be anything we could have done about it. One catastrophic volcanic eruption can completely negate and far outdo anything we try to do over the next 25 years. BUT I'm on the side of being responsible and managing what we release into the atmosphere regardless.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as global warming, and I'm not saying we do/don't cause it - I'm just saying we don't know, and the only people claiming they absolutely KNOW anything are not the scientists, on either side.

[BryanS]

Go read post #6 again, from an actual meteorologist. It has no political slant, only a scientific conclusion. The leftists don't go after GW so vehemently because they actually understand or trust any science, it's completely political.

Mother Nature is going to put everyone in their place sooner or later, and there won't be anything we could have done about it. One catastrophic volcanic eruption can completely negate and far outdo anything we try to do over the next 25 years. BUT I'm on the side of being responsible and managing what we release into the atmosphere regardless.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as global warming, and I'm not saying we do/don't cause it - I'm just saying we don't know, and the only people claiming they absolutely KNOW anything are not the scientists, on either side.

I am supposed to believe an anonymous meteorologist on an internet chat forum over an international body of scientists - who have made their career studying climate change vs. someone who took a statistics class in college? (I don't mean this as a personal attack by any means.) Who took that class, more than likely, before the IPCC released its final report?

We do know that we are part of the problem. Whether or not you, and others, accept that reality is a separate question.

For your last statement to be true, the IPCC's report would have been inconclusive and it would have agreed with the meteorologist's assessment posted here (they are the scientists that KNOW). It did not. And the IPCC is an impartial, international group of climate scientists of which no others, to date, have been able to seriously refute their well-vetted findings short of screaming-at-the-rain type of arguments, which really does not advance the debate.

[20thStDad]

Do a little more reading up on your sacred IPCC report, it is not the gospel that you claim it to be. And this is no surprise based on where it came from, there is ample slant in it. I didn't feel like going back to find all the things I read, but here are a few. I can't honestly say they are the best examples or experts, but either way the point they make about the spin of the results and the fact that its findings are merely the expert opinions of a group put together in order to generate that particular opinion is enough for me to not worship it as you seem to.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/

Now definitely the entire report is not crap, and we should be prudent with regards to emissions, but the current tone is a little on the alarmist and dramatic side for me.

[BryanS]

Do a little more reading up on your sacred IPCC report, it is not the gospel that you claim it to be. And this is no surprise based on where it came from, there is ample slant in it. I didn't feel like going back to find all the things I read, but here are a few. I can't honestly say they are the best examples or experts, but either way the point they make about the spin of the results and the fact that its findings are merely the expert opinions of a group put together in order to generate that particular opinion is enough for me to not worship it as you seem to.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/

Now definitely the entire report is not crap, and we should be prudent with regards to emissions, but the current tone is a little on the alarmist and dramatic side for me.

Thank you for the information and the links. I would encourage these sources, as well as all others who have concerns, to make their voices heard to the IPCC. Per the IPCC mandate:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

This same body, per their mission, would be more than happy to evaluate any data, observation, or analysis they missed along the lines that human-caused global warming is inconclusive or not a significant global warming factor. That is, this same body could conclude, after careful analysis of recent scientific data (that you and others provide), that humans really are not a factor to global warming. That conclusion, however, to date, cannot be supported as the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

[CDeb]

You're right. Nobel prizes are a dime a dozen, given to self-serving political bodies/individuals such as Mother Teresa. She didn't deserve it.

They certainly are a dime a dozen if they are given to the likes of Yassir Arafat.

Spending untold billions... We should do it now... because we can replace/replenish money, over time. If we wait too long... no amount of money or effort will save us.

Save us from what? Even your sainted IPCC itself attaches a low level of confidence to any predictions of the consequences of global warming. Those that have tried are taking the absolute worst case scenarios from the IPCC report and are completely ignoring any potential benefits that global warming may have. The earth has been much, much warmer than it is today in human times. Sorry, but I'm not willing to put millions of people into poverty with massive spikes in energy costs over "maybe."

10 years means nothing. This problem was studied, in depth, spanning thousands and thousands of years, by a body of high knowledgeable individuals that no other body, to date, has been able to put forward counter evidence that can withstand the same test/rigors and scientific process standards of the IPCC work.

EXCEPT for the fact that this 10 years of data is already rendering the computer models that are supposed to be predicting hundreds of years into the future as flawed.

[TheNiche]

The consensus is that people who profess no regard for or obligation to future generations are, at best, sociopathic, and at worst...well, sociopathic.

Moderator, moderate thyself.

What is Prohibited:

Vulgarity. Profanity. Personal attacks. Explicit discussions of sex or bodily functions. HAIF is a resource open to all, and many schoolchildren use it for researching their projects. Let's keep the discussions on-topic and family-friendly.

[TheNiche]

Spending untold billions... We should do it now... because we can replace/replenish money, over time. If we wait too long... no amount of money or effort will save us. Untold billions now will advance our pursuit of green energy, employ thousands of people, and loosen the grip that oil companies and third world dictators presently have on us. I would invest the money.

Well this goes back to what is the best way to insure against the effects of GW. Do you try to prevent it? Do you even know what it would take to prevent it with any reasonable probability of success? Do you believe that we have adequate knowledge to, perhaps, try our hand at terraforming? Or do you think it too risky? And if you aren't confident in an attempt to terraform for the betterment of man (an assumption on my part over which I'll an anyurism if I'm wrong about), what makes you so confident in a successful attempt to counter-terraform an unintentional and adverse terraforming process?

Or we could develop infrastructure to cope with it...which can be engineered to ensure the survivability and prosperity of mankind under any number of circumstances and has the added benefit of allowing us to cope more effectively with other catastrophic events, such as large volcanic erruptions, asteroid strikes, ice ages, or other occurances. This is the kind of thing I can get on board with.

Any kind of terraforming or counter-terraforming process is akin to giving a blind man a CHL. He may not be able to diagnose a true threat, and when he believes that one exists, he stands as good a chance at hurting himself or the innocent as he does at being completely ineffectual, but with practically no chance at all of actually fending off the threat, if real.

10 years means nothing. This problem was studied, in depth, spanning thousands and thousands of years, by a body of high knowledgeable individuals that no other body, to date, has been able to put forward counter evidence that can withstand the same test/rigors and scientific process standards of the IPCC work.

Firstly, I think you're way off the mark. "Thousands and thousands" is a teriffic understatement. Think in the tens and hundreds of thousands. Secondly, I think it demonstrates your lack of understanding of geologic time.

You're just going to have to get used to being tired then. Because no other body, no other respected, vigorously vetted, and serious scientific consensus - to the contrary - is out there. When such consensus emerges, I, unlike your half of the crowd, won't be pounding the sand claiming that such work is politically slanted simply because I don't agree with the politics of its spokesman. I'd like to hear the facts. I'd like to go see the movie to see where the "other side" is coming from. So far, nothing (other than noise) has been presented to advance the anti-GW position.

You would want to see a movie about a scientific debate!? Would that really influence you?

[RedScare]

Any kind of terraforming or counter-terraforming process is akin to giving a blind man a CHL. He may not be able to diagnose a true threat, and when he believes that one exists, he stands as good a chance at hurting himself or the innocent as he does at being completely ineffectual, but with practically no chance at all of actually fending off the threat, if real.

I fail to see how a piece of paper in the hands of a blind man is any threat to either him or me. I do agree however, that the CHL provides him with practically no chance at all of actually fending off the threat.

[TheNiche]

I fail to see how a piece of paper in the hands of a blind man is any threat to either him or me. I do agree however, that the CHL provides him with practically no chance at all of actually fending off the threat.

Think of the CHL as signed legislation, and think of the blind man as the politician charged with enforcing it.

The analogy holds.

[BryanS]

They certainly are a dime a dozen if they are given to the likes of Yassir Arafat.

Save us from what? Even your sainted IPCC itself attaches a low level of confidence to any predictions of the consequences of global warming. Those that have tried are taking the absolute worst case scenarios from the IPCC report and are completely ignoring any potential benefits that global warming may have. The earth has been much, much warmer than it is today in human times. Sorry, but I'm not willing to put millions of people into poverty with massive spikes in energy costs over "maybe."

EXCEPT for the fact that this 10 years of data is already rendering the computer models that are supposed to be predicting hundreds of years into the future as flawed.

Somewhat ironic... because... why would the IPCC, and Al Gore, be given the Peace Prize for a scientific work? I thought that was strange. But then... I found out... it was because if we did nothing... the world's population, in particular those in lesser developed nations would run the real risk of running out of food, causing riots, wars, and deeper poverty than they are already in, and that could also affect us. That is, we've been given the choice, today, to do something better for tomorrow.

There are benefits to global warming... maybe for you, in your lifetime. But what your children's future? And the next several generations? And can you provide some information on your assessment that "millions" of people will be put into poverty over our pursuit and development of cleaner energy? I don't follow that.

The tropical storm topic was hijacked so the global warming posts were moved to an appropriate open topic.

you need to move one more... please...

[gwilson]

Just read this article about the propeganda machine designed to deny global warming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Not trying to start a flame war. Would like reasonable discussion about your views.

What makes you think there aren't propaganda machines on both sides? There is a lot of money to be made on either side of this argument. People tend to forget that the Green movement isn't free and that there is a LOT of money there.

[houstonmacbro]

What makes you think there aren't propaganda machines on both sides? There is a lot of money to be made on either side of this argument. People tend to forget that the Green movement isn't free and that there is a LOT of money there.

Yeah, there is a lot of money to be made. But it's supposedly better for the planet.

[ricco67]

<bump>

Because I can.

[Montrose1100]

I'm kinda glad people believe Global Warming and all that jazz. It doesn't hurt to convert a lot of power sources to solar and wind. I love windmills, they look really cool.

But I refuse to buy a hybrid, no power... how am I suppose to race people?

[ricco67]

I'm kinda glad people believe Global Warming and all that jazz. It doesn't hurt to convert a lot of power sources to solar and wind. I love windmills, they look really cool.

But I refuse to buy a hybrid, no power... how am I suppose to race people?

I believe in global warming, but I don't think human's have much to do about it. That's pretty much what I believe now. After reading a couple of papers about the "little Ice age", I decided everything that we've been told about is bunk. Where were the SUV's that warmed up the earth during the early 1800's?

Well, Monty, I guess you don't believe in Global warming yourself enough to buy a hybrid. Glad to hear about consistency.

[BryanS]

I'm kinda glad people believe Global Warming and all that jazz. It doesn't hurt to convert a lot of power sources to solar and wind. I love windmills, they look really cool.

But I refuse to buy a hybrid, no power... how am I suppose to race people?

Try this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

100% electric

0 to 60 in 3.9 secs.

13000 rpm redline

256 mpg

[urban909]

Personally I consider myself a global warming agnostic. Yes its not good to dump tons of CO2 in the air. But one also has to look at the way data is gathered in the first place. Data is based on models, which in turn, for example, depend on assumptions (complex as it is) such as ocean currents or atmospheric conditions etc, which no one truly understands in the first place. So wouldn't that make the models flawed/changing and in turn that data isn't fully understood?

My major concern is carbon credits. http://www.stockpickr.com/problog/295/ This leading to being a trading that could outstrip traditional monetary trading; those companies/countries involved in selling carbon credits to companies that still pollute the same amount but "offset it" by buying credit and having some plants planted.

[BryanS]

Personally I consider myself a global warming agnostic. Yes its not good to dump tons of CO2 in the air. But one also has to look at the way data is gathered in the first place. Data is based on models, which in turn, for example, depend on assumptions (complex as it is) such as ocean currents or atmospheric conditions etc, which no one truly understands in the first place. So wouldn't that make the models flawed/changing and in turn that data isn't fully understood?

My major concern is carbon credits. http://www.stockpickr.com/problog/295/ This leading to being a trading that could outstrip traditional monetary trading; those companies/countries involved in selling carbon credits to companies that still pollute the same amount but "offset it" by buying credit and having some plants planted.

Data is based on what is in ice core samples. No assumptions. No ocean currents. Just look at the core samples. If you watch Al Gore's movie (even if you don

[Montrose1100]

I believe in global warming, but I don't think human's have much to do about it. That's pretty much what I believe now. After reading a couple of papers about the "little Ice age", I decided everything that we've been told about is bunk. Where were the SUV's that warmed up the earth during the early 1800's?

Well, Monty, I guess you don't believe in Global warming yourself enough to buy a hybrid. Glad to hear about consistency.

Well I traded in my suv for a car... easier to drive in the rain

[20thStDad]

Data is based on what is in ice core samples. No assumptions. No ocean currents. Just look at the core samples. If you watch Al Gore's movie (even if you don't agree with man), the level of CO2 trapped in real life ice core samples is literally off the charts. WAY OFF. So far off, that in the movie, he had to be hoisted up on fork/power lift to point out where the CO2 levels are today and where they have never been in past thousands, and thousands of years.

I should go look it up before I start spouting numbers, but in one of those earth biography shows on Discovery they said that oxygen levels at the time of the dinosaurs was around 9-10%, and CO2 was a lot higher, maybe near 10% - definitely way higher than it is now. I don't remember exact numbers. Asteroid catastrophe, time, whatever else, and the levels became much different, which totally changed the dominant species on the planet.

Anyway, the point was, the earth will survive. Nature will survive, it always finds a way. But humans...what we might not be ready for is a quick adaptation that might be required if the atmosphere goes through more major changes. We're smart, we can figure anything out, but I would hate if we made it extremely hard on ourselves.

[TheNiche]

Data is based on what is in ice core samples. No assumptions. No ocean currents. Just look at the core samples. If you watch Al Gore's movie (even if you don

[Highway6]

Nature will survive, it always finds a way.

Right on, Dr. Ian Malcolm !!

[urban909]

Data is based on what is in ice core samples. No assumptions. No ocean currents. Just look at the core samples. If you watch Al Gore's movie (even if you don

[20thStDad]

Right on, Dr. Ian Malcolm !!

Was that from Jurassic Park? I can picture the dude but not the context or scene.

[BryanS]

That's user error. They need to right click on the offending axis, click on 'Format Axis' and change the scale settings, as appropriate.

Idiot, and his "fuzzy math".

Let's say the idiot did that... and normalized it on a scale from 0 to 1. You'd see a big fat 0 for all the years humans have walked the earth... and then a step function straight to 1 over the past 100 years, all the years we've been burning fossil fuels.