Man Based Global Warming....

Sometimes I wonder if anyone can even read and comprehend anymore. Or even wants to comprehend. Where are the objections to Dr. Pielke's points?

NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE can seriously argue that climate does not change. It changes from age to age, millenium to millenium, century to century, decade to decade, year to year, season to season, week to week, day to day, and hour to hour. Some places we live it changes from minute to minute.

The so-called 'global warming' question (now morphed into 'climate change') revolves around how much, and in what ways, mankind influences this change. The answers to these questions presupposes accurate data measurements, a following of the scientific method including hypotheses that can be tested and proved to be acceptable.

If it can be shown that the changes mankind effects will be deleterious, then measures to correct that behavior should be implemented after carefully selecting the most efficient, realistic and effective counter-measures. If it turns out to be beneficial, we should continue it.

At this stage of the science, it is, in my humble opinion - with no science (that follows the accepted scientific method) to disprove my opinion - that we DO NOT know enough to be installing draconian economic solutions to problems we have not adequately described.

That's it for me as a layman, and for enough reasonable scientists with sterling credentials, to question politically driven solutions to unproven problems.

 

Because your run of the mill politicians aren't going to do anything about AGW until the public forces them to. Politicians are short-sighted creatures. Gore tried for years to educate politicians and motivate them to act. As he said in the movie, his colleagues just shrugged when he presented the science.

It would be a rare politician who would do the right thing and protect the greater good at the expense of his/her next re-election.

Gore attempted to create a sea-change in public perception. It obviously helped, but the vast majority of the public still has no idea the severity of the problem we face. It really hasn't sunk in yet. But at least now the more principled politicians (like Obama) with the right convictions are able to act.

 

CO2 is but one factor in a sea of natural variability. I doubt there is scientific consensus that there is no warming for the past ten years.

That's your right-wing brain getting in the way again.

China is increasing their investment in renewables and efficiencies at an exponential rate. So is India. They aren't waiting for us anymore. Neither country wants to lose their most populous cities to sea level rise or have a tremendous influx of refugees from neighboring countries.

 

More meat news:

Despite Canada having a huge amount of grass fed beef:

from

Putting food on the table produces greenhouse gases: StatsCan

 

Isn't that propoganda?

 

How often is China opening a new-coal-fired power plant? 2 a week. What did you say about renewables?

 

No it's called education.

 

look at the last 10 years. These are James Hansen's own figures.

 

They can't turn an economy that big on a dime.

Check this out:

Why is America losing the “green stimulus” competition to China?

From We Must Seize the Energy Opportunity or Slip Further Behind

 

If you slap a trend line in there, I bet it would have a positive slope.

 

How about we look at this from a different angle,

If changing our behavior and our energy consumption patterns has the benefits of helping the environment perhaps that would be a good thing. But for others amongst us, if this change result in a lessening of dependence on oil, (which even the strongest naysayers have to agree is finite!) leads to developments in 'real' alternative energy etc. Isn' t that a good thing?

I for one think that I would rather err on doing too much too soon,, even if it comes at some extra cost then waiting too long and A:making it more expensive,, and B: Maybe too late to save my grand kids!

Icarus

 

I have a far different take on GW. Believe or not, who cares? What has been demonstrated by the ongoing tug-o-war between the two factions demonstrates that no matter what, any global emergency WILL NOT BE MET with full force due to corporate liars and politicians seeking to retain their power. This has demonstrated to me that, say if a meteor were heading straight to earth we would all be fried before there could be a consensus on how to avoid catastrophe. If, say, the National Academy of Scientists declared a global emergency of ANY kind, people will remember the GW scenario and will be unable to effectively combat any global threat, due to conflicting opinions.

It seems to me that if there is even a PERCEIVED threat mankind should immediately have a plan in place to combat the threat, whether or not that plan is actually put in place. This defense of 'MY' turf, power, wealth or what ever at the expense of preparedness will eventually cost mankind, mankind.

 

When has mankind been united? You could make somewhat of a case for the second world war, but even then it was obviously not completely united. It would take an attack from outerspace to unite us and even then some group of humans somewhere would be sucking up to be on top in the new world order.

As for the national academy of sciences I would say their "consensus" has not always proven to be correct.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics[/ame]

 

Ain't that the sad, cruel truth. We're the one race on the planet with the vision and intelligence to appreciate and nurture the beauty of life, yet we're the ones killing it as fast as we can.

 

I think you mean species rather than race.

Why bring abortion into a global warming discussion? I assume by mentioning 'we're the ones killing it (life) as fast as we can,' that you are referring to abortion. There are over 46,000,000 killings a year, worldwide. Abortion Statistics by U.S. State, Race, Age and Worldwide Statistics

Any loss of life as a result of global warming pales in comparison.

Let us stick to global warming. I'd hate to see this thread disintegrate into a controversial subject where passions rise and people can only abide comfortably within their own echo chambers, ignoring the factual presentations of those who disagree.

 

A meteor, by definition, is already in the earth's atmosphere. That would give us a few seconds at most to arrive at a 'consensus' on what to do. You must have meant meteoroid or, more likely, asteroid. We are already considering what to do in this instance. Asteroid threat demands response, experts warn - space - 17 February 2007 - New Scientist

Interestingly, the U.N. thinks it can respond to this threat with a 'protocol'. Sounds familiar. What will happen, should the threat be imminent, is that the United States, if it survives Obamanomics, will unilaterally come to the rescue as usual.

 

(No, he was not referring to abortion. He meant the sixth great extinction event, now in progress at the hands of humanity.)

AGW is fundamentally as simple as putting a lid on a pot of ice water on a stove: the temperature may not rise everywhere until all the ice has melted, but the pot *will* boil faster. Fossil-derived CO2 added to the atmosphere is the lid we are putting on our world.

 

Well, not quite THAT simple. In some ways, you've got it backwards. The 'lid' already existed long before man came along. It is known as our atmosphere and the 'greenhouse gases' included in it. Without the lid, we wouldn't be here. It is a pretty special lid in that it seems to be self-regulating. It changes in terms of cloud cover, water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc. over periods of time and keeps the earth's temperature within the bounds that support life.

This temperature has been both higher and lower than it is today. So, the question you are asking and answering is: Does mankind's relatively tiny contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere portend the extinction of life. You say YES! This is an extreme view that goes beyond even the wild imaginings of Al Gore. But, he just LOVES that you think that and wishes he could make a movie about it. Oh, wait!!

Since you like the pot of water on the stove analogy, PLEASE go here and see why someone else likes it as well to provide understanding to laymen such as you and I.
Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
Scroll down to the May 29,2009 article. It is the third one down as of this posting. WARNING!!! His conclusions differ from yours.

Then come back and explain to me why and where you agree or disagree with his observations. Don't tell me that he doesn't believe passive smoke is statistically important or that he is involved with the Heartland Institute. I already know that. Address the 'pot on the stove' analogy. After all, you brought it up.

 

No. I was referring to the human race we're all part of, regardless of our skin tone.

Uhhh...no, nothing to do with abortion. I don't know why you'd assume that.

Yes, exactly. I wonder what the 'iridium layer' marking the end of our era will be. Petroleum? Concrete? Styrofoam?

Collectively, big L Life (and by that, just to be clear, I mean all species and their synergistic relationships over the whole span of time) has done an amazing job of regulating Earth's temperature. But that's changing. Sure, the temperature has been different than it is now. But it's the rate of change that's the big problem. The last time it changed this much this fast, we had mass extinctions. And it's not just the temperature, or the CO2. It's the habitat loss, the monocultures, the plunge in biomass and biodiversity...we're screwing up, big time. Which is the sad, cruel irony I was talking about. We should be helping, not hurting.

 

Look, since my humor, sarcasm and hyperbole seem to be lost on those who use only hyperbole, let's cut to the chase:

Pardon if I scream for a while.

THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THIS THREAD BOILS DOWN TO WHETHER MAN'S CONTRIBUTION OF CO2 IS GOING TO CAUSE A CATASTROPHIC WARMING OF THE EARTH OVER THE NEXT CENTURY or not.

It is the IPCC's contention that anthropogenic contribution WILL lead to disaster if we don't DO SOMETHING NOW. I don't care how many scientists worked on how many papers, if the hypothesis is wrong, it is WRONG. I don't care how many scientific bodies agree with the IPCC, if it's wrong, IT"S WRONG.

Now, what will it take to show that it's wrong? Telling people that the temperature measurements are incorrect doesn't seem to have any influence. If telling them that the measurements presented by the scientists working for the IPCC are wrong, it doesn't matter. Graphs fraudulently made to look dramatic? Doesn't matter, dammit, I saw the movie!

And on and on and on and on and on and on.

How about this?

"...It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed..."


The 5.5 year accumulated heat deficit for GISS model projections (red line) ranges from 6.48 x 1022 Joules (using Willis) to 7.92 x 1022 Joules (Loehle, extrapolated to the end of 2008). Pielke is more conservative in his calculations, given the substantial margin of error in Willis’ data (±0.35). Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 1022Joules (Pielke, “Update…”). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2).

from:
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

"... Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.
Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science..."

Explain why this is meaningless. Why we should DO SOMETHING based on the unproven (disproven?) hypothesis put forward by the POLITICIANS at the IPCC?