Is there ANYBODY in the world that still denies the severity of global warming?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And when we are at it

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/forcings/senate/

Statement of Dr. James E. Hansen, Head, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on May 1, 2001

should make for an interesting read too.

just a quote from there

However, because of the oceanÃs long response time, we would expect a global warming to date of only about 3/4 ° C. An energy imbalance of 0.6 W/m2 remains with that much more energy coming into the planet than going out. This means there is another 1/2 ° C global warming already in the pipeline -- it will occur even if atmospheric composition remains fixed at todayÃs values

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and a bit more:

projection from 2000 -to 2050

green is "business as usual" - etc like it is now without changes

the purple is with the proposed changes (not Kyoto)

[Wraith]

--"here is the prediction link"

I'll try to look it over later. From what you've quoted here, it looks like they're using the "double hockey stick" model, right? If that's the case, there's no point in reviewing the links.

Look, I have no problems with some environmental measures. I do agree that pollution is a problem (although hopefully it's apparent that I'm not willing to classify CO2 as pollution). I just think these measure are not the right way to go about things.
Driving a car with good fuel effeciency? Good idea, saves me money. I've got a Honda Civic. High-efficency appliances, a home with good insulation? Saves me money in the long run, it's a good idea. I have no problem with conservation measures like this.

I also don't like companies polluting. For me it's a property rights issue; they should not be able to get away with damaging other people's property. I have no problem with internalizing the externalities of pollution. However, current measures of dealing with this are stupid. Kyoto, even accepting its own assumptions, is an extraordinarily moronic measure. A far simpler method would be to simply tax companies based on type and amount of pollution they emit. That way when there are efficent but less polluting methods available they'll be used, and where there aren't there will be money for remediation (getting the governments to actually use the money for this and not for general purposes is a horse of a different color).
So why would a libertarian like myself suggest a tax? Because it's a measure the government might actually adopt. I'd much prefer other methods, but it would rely on the government not doing things they're doing now (like subsidizing various power industries), so it won't happen.

So this is my objection. If you want to "do something", Kyoto is not the way to go. It's stupid, it's expensive, and it's ineffective. If you are truly an environmentalist there are much better causes to champion.
The only reason this issue is getting such play is the sturm und drang media coverage and widespread willful ignorance.

--"The only disaster I see is for Science. It is being belittled and perverted to make some unscrupulous scientists a buck."

I agree whole heartedly. This sort of thing is exactly why I advocate teaching critical thinking and logic in school.

Wraith
"...if men are to be ruled, then the enemy is reason."
-- Ayn Rand ("The Comprachicos")

[Bereta_Eder]

Noone in their right mind can ignore global warming.

[Vanguard]

[quote] Originally posted by Mad Monk

What if global warming is happening, and is being coused by the ongoing solar maximum?

If the Earth is receiving more heat due to higher solar flux, then it is extremely important that we do not pump out a lot of greenhouse gases. Doing so would trap a larger amount of the higher insolation----- a climatic double whammy. In the end we may still have to eat an Unhappy Meal of global warming from the increased sunlight. But we don't have to Supersize it with a greenhouse effect.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

Nature iirc

That rag? Okay, Nature is an acceptable bibliographic note. I retract.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

It's a simple structural problem. One end of the ice shelf, IIRC, is anchored, the rest isn't. The part that's anchored isn't moving, the rest is trying to. Plenty of stress on the rest of the body (and heck, even if neither end is anchored there's going to be stress from different currents, thicknesses of ice, and so on). Flexing a fairly rigid material over and over will break it.

This isn't true if the material is self-repairing, as ice in a cold environment is. I guess it is true that ice and water are an inherently unstable combination, both mechanically and thermally.

But by most estimates the Ross Ice shelf had probably existed in the same basic form (not the same ice, of course) for the last 20,000 years. The reason it is breaking up now, from what I have read, is due to a .5 degree increase in Antarctic water temperatures. Whatever the cause of this, warmer water is at least an indication of "warming", possibly global warming.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

I encourage you to read the IPCC report. The actual report, not the summary. The press and the IPCC have been working from the summary

I read some of it today. It is long and highly repetitive. I'll read the rest of it sometime, but for now I don't intend to waste too much of my vacation reading boilerplate such as:

[quote] Originally posted in "The Scientific Basis"

Although changes in weather and climate extremes are important to society, ecosystems, and wildlife, it is only recently that evidence for changes we have observed to date has been able to be compared to similar changes that we see in model simulations for future climate (generally taken to be the end of the 21st century as shown in this chapter). Though several simulations of 20th century climate with various estimates of observed forcings now exist (see Chapter 8), few of these have been analysed for changes in extremes over the 20th century. So far, virtually all studies of simulated changes in extremes have been performed for future climate. A number of studies are now under way for simulated 20th century climate, but are not yet available for assessment. Additionally, in the 20th century climate integrations there is usually a significant signal/noise problem (especially for changes in phenomena like storms). Therefore, here we assess changes in extremes that have been observed during the 20th century (see Chapter 2), and compare these to simulated changes of extremes for the end of the 21st century from AOGCMs run with increases in greenhouse gases and other constituents. Agreement between the observations and model results would suggest that the changes in extremes we have already observed are qualitatively consistent in a very general way with those changes in climate model simulations of future climate, indicating these changes in extremes would be likely to continue into the future.

Instead I'll just concede what appears to me be obvious; that the specific scientific evidence for global warming is not ironclad.

Mere doubt about global warming does not solve our problem however. We still have to decide whether to do something or not. Global warming could be going on. In fact it probably is, to a greater or lesser extent. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its effect, combined with the effect of other gases could generate a self reinforcing warming mechanism

And if it does, then we are going to have to do something about it, or suffer the likelihood of truly stupendous costs.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

.....omitting all the cautionary language....

Hard to blame them really, since the scientific report seems to include cautionary language in every single sentence of the entire report. Was is really neccessary for the authors to constantly repeat that they know nothing whatever about anything at all? One disclaimer per page would have been enough.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

In any case, why the focus on CO2? If you knew anything about global warming, you'd know that CO2 isn't even the main factor. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 isn't even the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas, methane is.

Because we can do something about CO2. Not much we can do about water vapor. Reducing CO2 emissions also would have local benefits: less smog, acid rain etc. It isn't a cheap option, but a some point we are going to have to prevent CO2 buildup in the atmosphere anyway. We can't continue to increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere forever. So why not do it now? That way, if CO2 does contribute to global warming, we will get maximum enviromental effect.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

CO2 also serves a very important function. It's called plant food.

Food generally isn't a limiting factor in plant growth. Water is more important.

[quote] Originally posted by Wraith

Why should we move away from bad-ass-ness? Bad-asses are cool.

Now this is an interesting and novel suggestion. Bad-asses are, as you say, cool. Therefore, a sufficiently large number of cool bad-asses should be able to negate the predicted warming effect and allow us to maintain a satisfactory thermal equilibrium within a high emission regime.

While this suggestion is interesting theoretically, I think that it is, ultimately, not technically feasible. The very large number of bad-asses required (I estimate 3 times ten to the ninth) would require a prodigious, and possibly unattainable, effort of global bad-ass reproduction.

Even if this problem could be overcome, the whole scheme seems to be doomed by the Second Law. Bad-asses may be cool, but to maintain such cool they require large cars, enormous breweries and hot babes. This being the case, it seems to me that a program of greatly increased bad-ass production, far from being a viable solution to the warming problem, would more likely exacerbate it.

This post has been edited for stupidity.

[CyberGnu]

Wraith:

If you've said "still at it" then you know my opinion of the media, including most of the so-called science magazines, covering the issue. I have presented counters before, and they get ignored, even when they're MIT professors on government panels.

Media? what are you talking about? I'm not referring to 'Scientific American', 'National Enquirer' or even 'Right-Wing Lunatic Montly'.

I'm talking about the journal Science. Together with Nature the most respected peer-reviewed journal there is.

*sigh*. You don't know how peer-review works, I take it...


CICSmaster, before you backtalk people who spent several years of their lives working their ass off to get a PhD, you might also benefit from understanding the basics of fundamental research...

[Pythagoras]

Well all I know is that everywhere I look the grass is dead, theres a huge **** cloud in Asia and floods in Europe, something has to be done to correct this.

[Admiral PJ]

I don't think human based global warming will cause serious damage for a few hundred years, the world is a large place and populations can't expand much more.

We still need more research and modelling,but it's good to develop better technologies for the environment.

I agree Bush's republican government needs to do more to help the environment, and that dosen't mean i'm being anti-american.. many americans dislike bushes policies greatly.
There are other environmental issues that are serious, like air pollution damaging peoples lungs , and the damage to eco systems and organisms in seas and on land - these need to be resolved urgently.

We all should remember we're on this planet together, it dosen't matter what country your in your responsible for every other human.. just becuase we have different governments dosen't make us from a different world.

[CyberGnu]

admiral PJ, the human population doesn't need to expand to cause damage. The CO2 emissions humanity spews out today is more than nature absorbs, so we have a steady growth of CO2 levels.

Currently the proven damage is slight. A few strains of lichen have died out, a few species of insects as well, but that is about it. The last few years extreme weather is possibly due to changed weather patterns due to global warming, but we don't understand enough about meterology to prove that.

However, if we let the CO2 levels grow unchecked (which we will do even if we keep the emissions at the exact same rate as today), we will face exponantially worse and worse damage with time....

This last paragraph is often used by right wing pundits to oppose the Kyoto treaty. It is of course a spurious argument - even a small improvement is better than no improvement, but it does stand as a sad testimony over the will to only listen to people they want to believe instead of people who actually understand the issue....

[Vanguard]

It is of course a spurious argument - even a small improvement is better than no improvement

Exactly. And since we will have to reduce emissions sooner or later, the sooner we do it the cheaper it will be.

[Dis]

how would it be cheaper sooner?

we don't have the technology to do so yet.

[CyberGnu]

Dissident, reducing emissions with 1% this year is equivalent to reducing emissions 2% next year. Unless you think it would be less than half the cost next year, it would be cheaper to reduce with 1% this year.

[Guest]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
CICSmaster, before you backtalk people who spent several years of their lives working their ass off to get a PhD, you might also benefit from understanding the basics of fundamental research...

What a load of twaddle.
Just because they spent several years of their lives working their ass off to get a PhD just proves that they have an investment in themselves that has to be collected on.

The basics of fundamental research. Oh Right! let me see if I got it right.
1. you observe nature.
2. you formulate a theory to account for the observations.
3. you publish so that your peers can tell you where you went wrong.

But what if you can't publish because the journals refuse to publish on the basis of three reviewers say so. And you don't know who the reviewers are. And the reviewers biases are not taken into account. So your peers do not get the chance to critique your paper.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the current warming is entirely caused by the Sun. However, this never gets brought up in the media - current or scientific - unless it is said to be a minority view. How, facts can be a minority view is beyond me.

Look, among Solar scientists it is beyond questioning that the Sun has been hotter in the last decade. This increased warmth exactly accounts for the rise in temperatures we see in the satellite record. If the Ground temperature record is adjusted to remove the heat island effect of major cities, then that agrees with the satellite record.

Finally, past concentrations of CO2 have lagged increased temperatures not lead them. This has been definitely proven in the ice core record. And furthermore, the ice core record shows concentrations of CO2 2 to 3 times the current values and no great leaps of temperature.

What does it all mean. It means that the Earth's environment is a lot stabler than anyone thought. Of course this would have to be true otherwise how could we evolved over billions of years. If coral is so sensitive to heat, how has it survived for billions of years?

[Dis]

yes but you can't magically reduce emissions.

What is the goverment going to do ask people to drive 1% less each year. It won't fly in our freedom loving society. The only way they could do it is force people to do it. And we wouldn't expect that to work very well.

[CyberGnu]

Dissident, try reading the Kyoto treaty. A combination of carbon penalties, renewable energy incitements, tougher fuel efficiency standards... There ARE ways to reduce carbon emissions.

Just eliminating the tiny-penis mobiles (SUVs) would reduce emissions more than 1%....