Global Warming: Signed, Sealed and delivered

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jul 27 2006, 02:14 PM) [snapback]293341[/snapback]</div>

IOW, you're proud of being lazy and ignorant. You can sell your anti-AGW argument without facts to like-minded people, but the scientific consensus needs to be re-defended with facts you seemingly don't understand or ignore.

3 of the 12 dispute the seriousness and/or the anthropogenic factor of global warming. Interestingly, 2 of those say it's too costly to address this for the minor change it would make or it's too late to do anything anyway. That's something I've never figured out - almost everybody who disputes global warming or the man-made cause of it, gives a reason as the policies to address it are expensive and would hurt our economy. Probably like how much getting rid of CFCs hurt our economy, or DDT or adding catalytic converters to cars hurt our economy. In other words - none. Besides, that's not the point - if we have a chance now to do something to protect our food supply and our country for our children, grandchildren and their children, we're morally obligated to do that, regardless. What if our soldiers during WWII decided not to fight because they thought it would hurt our economy, or it was too late to do anything anyway? That's not the American way, to shirk our responsibilities!

Not sure what you want on the _400K_ data - the last 1K years is about one pixel on the big picture, so I'm not sure what you think you detect as being out of correlation there. He's given links to his data, here's one to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png

Oddly, I've seen this chart on anti-global-warming sites as well, somehow they look at the correlation between CO2 and temperature and focus on the natural variations, ignoring our recent significant increase of CO2 levels. But they don't dispute the data. And yes, I read both sides to make sure I'm not getting biased data. In my view the rejectionists are getting beat back a bit at a time every year, changing their arguments as they go.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jul 27 2006, 05:28 PM) [snapback]293455[/snapback]</div>

What a LOL moment! I'm neither lazy nor ignorant. Simply put (again), the burden of proof isn't on me. It's on the alarmists.

If you read any of my posts in this thread, you'll see I'm not AGW. We're in a warming trend - up 1 degree F over the last 100 years. However, I'm skeptical of the impact mankind has made and can make. Just present data that can be measured and verified ... data that isn't an extrapolation or an approximation based upon peripheral circumstances. That's all you need to do. The trouble is (again), that data doesn't exist. It's foolish to base predictions on geological trends - ones over 10s of thousands of years - on a 100 year trend.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jul 27 2006, 05:28 PM) [snapback]293455[/snapback]</div>

As previously stated, the consensus is GW exists. However, 25% of scientists in that piece have doubts concerning it ... different concerns but concerns nonetheless.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jul 27 2006, 05:28 PM) [snapback]293455[/snapback]</div>

Look at the two plots. Can you tell how many years ago the CO2 concentration was near 300 ppm on the 600k plot ... 2k, 3k, 5k? Doesn't look close to 1k as his latest plot shows; then again, that thing could vary around 300 ppm for a couple of thousand years prior to what we see. That's why I asked him to provide the numbers for the plots. This would also give an idea of the sampling rate used to generate the "approximate" 600k plot. If the two plots are out of sync by more than a few hundred years, that's just another thing to question ... especially since all the directly-measured data is only about 100 years old itself.

Once again, if you're gonna present something as proof, be prepared to have it questioned and back it up if asked.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Jul 27 2006, 07:48 AM) [snapback]293162[/snapback]</div>

So was L. Ron Hubbard, and we know how Trapped in the Closet that is currently.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Jul 27 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]293349[/snapback]</div>

The denial about global warming is akin to children still playing in the house - while it is burning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jul 27 2006, 07:52 PM) [snapback]293541[/snapback]</div>

McShemp, 1 degree increase is an average picture. Some areas are up several degrees i.e. Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, have average temperatures that have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit. Just like some moisture laden areas will experience increased drought while other more arid regions recognize increased percipitation. Also, you state that the burden of proof is not on anybody but the alarmists. If there is to be an active debate on the topic, then the AGW advocates have a burden of proof as well. If no factual data exists to back up the AGW side of the debate, the debate no longer exists and the theory of the alarmist prevails. Since it doesn't seem you are inclined to acquiesce to the alarmists, the burden of proof remains on you as well.

 

Excellent points. I would like to expand on exactly what a 1 degree F increase has meant for us so far... I'll post the significant factors in some of the articles I've been collecting on GW.

(In some ways I would think the IPCC has underestimated electrical demand... isn't A/C use one of the biggest energy consumers in the home?)

-NOTE: I believe that the major producers of GHG's should be held accountable for the deaths of these people. A class action lawsuit would force them all to accept the science, and bear the consequences. Don't get me wrong... I'm all for personal action... but I think by forcing a class action lawsuit, they would eventually have to rely on the argument that it's the individual people... IE users... that are contributing the GHG's... and if they don't admit to GW then make it high-tide for them and show them it's in their best interest to accept the science.

Speaking of economic loss, what about the fishing industry?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_...urope_heat_wave

"Warmer waters disrupt Pacific food chain"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/ap_on_sc/marine_crisis

"Scorching U.S.: First Half of 2006 Sets Heat Record"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40803093903.htm

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...ifferences.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jul 29 2006, 10:56 AM) [snapback]294285[/snapback]</div>

If your all for personal action why sue? why not just make people move...oh oh lets sue mother earth because she got warmer. or better yet sue the oil companies who fed the market that allowed for the financial stability of a company to devot millions in research to the car you use as a pedestal.

oh and I kinda like this global warming thing. It is to cold here in the winter. Not so concerned abotu the coasts. I think the ocean should be brought to me.

 

What a pity that you had to resort to such arguments to get people to care about the only planet they can inhabit.

Well said.

If companies like ExxonMobil did not spend their money on denialist campaigns, I would take less issue with them. Facts are facts and they are amongst the largest contributors of CO2. You could get all the electricity from renewable resources, if that was a top priority.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Aug 15 2006, 02:38 PM) [snapback]303629[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jbarnhart @ Aug 15 2006, 03:39 AM) [snapback]303416[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Jul 26 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]292937[/snapback]</div>

Your correlation is wrong...

...Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during glaciation "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al. (1999) decided that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

I.e., historically, based on the Vostok core, increases in carbon dioxide levels occur AFTER warming has started. Doesn't disprove that rising CO2 could drive climate change today, but doesn't support it either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 22 2006, 03:34 AM) [snapback]307379[/snapback]</div>

This has been clarified by Cuffey and Vimeux, Nature, 2001

"Here we incorporate measurements of deuterium excess from Vostok in the temperature reconstruction and show that much of the mismatch is an artefact caused by variations of climate in the water vapour source regions."

"Given the complexity of the biogeochemical systems involved, this close relationship strongly supports the importance of carbon dioxide as a forcing factor of climate"

The mismatch they talk about is the lag between temperature change and co2 change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 22 2006, 06:25 AM) [snapback]307427[/snapback]</div>

Caillon et al. (2003) found "the CO2 increase lagged behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

So it seems the Vostok data is still in dispute.

Other studies found similar results -- that CO2 lags temperature, not leads, based on Vostok [Yokoyama et al. (2000); Monnin et al. (2001); Mudelsee (2001)].

Again - this doesn't say C02 increases can't drive temperature increases, but the data does not support the conclusion as claimed in the original posting. And, it raises the question in regard to what variables drove past climate changes and whether (and to what degree) they are in effect today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 23 2006, 01:49 PM) [snapback]308363[/snapback]</div>

No one has argued that what precipitated an ice age or terminated it was solely C02. Other factors were likely important. However, the C02 levels that we see today are unprecedented.



In my opinion it is not important whether they are lagging one another or not. It appears that there is a correlation. That is good enough for me for not taking the (catastrophic) chance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 23 2006, 11:52 AM) [snapback]308369[/snapback]</div>

Huh? You argued in support of the idea that causation was important, now you are saying it is not since it is not there?

A correlation alone is meaningless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 23 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]308382[/snapback]</div>

With complex systems of many interacting variables a correlation is very powerful. Due to feedback loops, intermediate stages and unknown variables you can seldom find a direct A->B casuality in a complex system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 23 2006, 04:54 PM) [snapback]308538[/snapback]</div>

The argument was, based on Vostok, that A causes B (rising CO2 caused past temperature increases). My point is, based on further studies, the relationship is shown to be B follows A, with Vostok. Thus there is no "direct" causality here of rising CO2 causing a temperature rise, as was claimed to be shown by Vostok. In fact - no apparent causality at all is supported by the Vostok core, unless it is perhaps that rising temperatures drive increases in CO2, not the other way around.

So I think we are in agreement then that the Vostok core does not show the CO2->Temperature causality that was stated in the original post, correct?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 25 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]309429[/snapback]</div>

Don't confuse the issue. C02 is a greenhouse gas and its elevation will cause an increase in temperature. No one argues that climate change in the past is multifactorial ( although correlated to C02 levels). The point is that the current levels of C02, a known greenhouse gas, are the highest they have ever been!

BTW, where in the original post was the claim of a direct casuality between C02 levels and past climate change?

This is a more important quote:

"My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause."