GW takes a blow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 10:29 AM) [snapback]400996[/snapback]</div>

You misread your own links. They are not saying that precipitation is not included in the GCMs. They are saying that the impact of precipitation on the models needs improvement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Mar 5 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]400346[/snapback]</div>

As lifeaftertheoilcrash.net says, admitting that global warming is happening would threaten profits just as admitting that we're running out of oil would. It's indicative of what's happened to this country when companies care more about their profits than they do about their planet. The guys who are richer than god evidently believe that their wealth will make it possible for them to live comfortably while the rest of us starve and freeze and are, therefore, too weak to come for them with our angry mobs with pitchforks and torches.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 05:10 AM) [snapback]401558[/snapback]</div>

I can certainly agree that it is extremely difficult to predict with any certainty the future impact of GW and that this is due to a LOT of factors, and that precipitation may well be one of them.

So what?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 7 2007, 08:18 AM) [snapback]401672[/snapback]</div>

We must keep in mind how acurate some of the model predictions have already panned out. Like the one Hansen prsented in Rio and then Crichton misused and presented as evidence that modeling doesn't work. :angry:

What some people fail to recognize is the possibility that the effects shown in the models could actually be worse than predicted. Case in point was the effects global dimming had on prejections.

You are correct in saying so what though. Regardless of the accuracy of the models, burning of fossil fuels has a largely negative effect on so many things and the money spent on renewables and sustainabilty is in no way a waste except in the eyes of the antiquated economist or the uneducated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]401710[/snapback]</div>

Well, I guess if science is unable to predict something with 100% certainty, men should never consider seeing a gastroenterologist if they are at risk for colon cancer. No one can tell me for certain if I'll get it, what bunk! Those doctors just want my money!

What the IPCC says on temperature rises (from http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf ).

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

Again, you fight a straw man by always ascibing more certain predictions than the scientists make. They use a range of climate models. They off a range of predictions based on different scenarios. Some of the scenarious still offer reasonably dire predictions (the scenarios begin dependant of the volume of continuing CO2 emissions, etc.).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 7 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]401734[/snapback]</div>

Virtually no one is arguing natural GW Scott. Sure the Earth's temperature may be rising slightly. And so what? The Earth has gone up and down with regards to temperature in relatively wild swings since its inception. Live with it. Unlike animals, humans can adapt without "knee jerk" instinctive reactions.

The point at hand is some people (and 99 and 44/100ths percent of Priuschatters) believe man is the major, if not primary reason for GW. Now the Earth is beginning one of its umpteenth swings to higher temps and it is our fault. In the 70's when the Earth was perceived as cooling that too was perceived by some our fault.

It's only human nature to try to pin changes in our environment as our own doing. Politicians and prominent mouthpieces live such events. They get exposure by spreading the word and promising to make it better for all of us and in the same breath get to label their opponents as the cause of such perceived myths. Just as in most classic plays or Hollywood movies, there always has to be a bad guy/force that the will enable the good guy to emerge victorious.

But there is one small item we always forget mention. Money. Oh yes, it's going to cost you a little but you must contribute for the good of the world so you too can be part of the solution. Remember, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]401710[/snapback]</div>

Our systems are very dynamic as is our impact on them given our trends in pollution, consumption and ecosystem destruction/disturbance.

There is no way you can be versed in science without realizing non-linearity, bifurcation points and systems complexity. Model predictions WILL change as our behaviors change and the natural systems change. With cleaner burning power plants and cars our aerosol concentration goes down and then models have to account for that change and thus a new prediction is made. You are stuck in a cartesien mindset.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 7 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]401787[/snapback]</div>

Rick,

The consensus on AGW is from scientists, not politicians. Policticians and non-peer-reviewed papers muddle the issue. Policiticians were mostly late in getting on this issue. Whereas the scientists have a pretty strong consensus in favor of AGW -- a rare thing in science.

One of the sad and frustating aspects of it now is that whenever some new scientific paper proposes methods to improve modeling, prediction, etc., it is suddenly bandied about the web as "proof" that AGW is uncertain. Thus, the self-correcting methods of scientific research get twisted into anti-AGW propaganda.

And the argument gets inflated by media, so that those who believe in AGW are somehow advocating Day After Tomorrow scenarios, or ascribing specific weather events to AGW, which, while it makes for a good story and pro-AGW propaganda, is an exageration of certainty, i.e., a scientist will say it is "likely" AGW will result in stronger hurricanes, and a politician will say Katrina was caused by AGW.

Climate sceptics are at odds with nearly all of the leading scientific authorities on global warming, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The surprisingly few scientist dissenters can often be found to be associated with oil company-funded foundations. And yes, money is involved. Likely from the ~10 billion a quarter Exxon has been earning the last few years. To somehow think there is more money to be made in AGW research than in protecting record oil company profits is beyond naive.

That the anti-AGW lobby has been effective is evident in posts such as yours. Much like the tobacco company propaganda efforts, the anti-AGW lobby focuses effort on sowing uncertainty and saying the science is suspect. I'm sure people who never smoked and are today dying of lung cancer from secondhand smoke appreciate the great scientific work done by big tobacco. As I'm sure many on the planet will appreciate the efforts of big oil to delay action on AGW that might interfere with their short term profits.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/E...ng-tobacco.html

Undeniable Global Warming
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html

You rarely see scientists using language as forceful as "very high confidence":
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2).
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

 

What I want to know, is how people like doberman decide that "the models about global warming are uncertain" and then leap to the conclusion that "it won't be as bad as they're predicting".

If the models as uncertain as you claim, please explain what stops it from being worse than what they're predicting? Wishful thinking? Faith? Political ideology?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 7 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]401898[/snapback]</div>

Myopic narrow-mindedness, an innate ability to see things in black and white only and a religious certainty that their POV is always right and everyone else's are wrong?
Just a guess...

 

Good thread!

I want to point out something on a majority opinion (heck call it consensus) and having a few lone individuals fighting it. Think Galileo Galilei, he and Kopernikus where among a handful of individuals who went against a widely adopted, known and proven (in their own way) status quo that the sun and the planets evolved around the Earth. Earth was also standing still, else everyone would be flung of its surface . So the dissenting voices have a place in this discussion, even if it only forces the other side to strengthen their findings with more research and insight or in Galileo's case, relent to the proof founded in sound science.

Now having said that, I would also like to point out that despite naturally occurring fluctuations in global temperatures, which have happened without humankind being involved for a very long time, it would be utterly foolish to assume that humankind has *no* impact on its environment. I would offer that humans at minimum exasperate a system already in flux, and that this exasperation breaks from the norm which the planet can handle. Man has truly used and abused its environment and never kept in tune with giving back what is taken. Only in the last century has humankind seen its full power of destruction and also realized its potential to undo or prevent harm being done.

GW is really a misnomer, IMNSHO. Perhaps it would be wise to label it Global Climate Change (GCC) which allows for warming and cooling trends to happen. In either case, a change in climate, be it warmer or colder, will have an effect on where the majority of humans continue to settle down and establishing their agricultural bases. Warming in one place will have a cooling effect in other areas, that is the basic refrigeration effect.

I will gladly give the dissenters the time to express their views and will hear their opinion, for they have a chance to proof me wrong, but you know what, that would be one loss I would cherish. If the GW nay sayers are correct and all our efforts to bring about change, invent better ways to generate, use and reuse energy was for naught, wow… hooray for all of us. However what if they are wrong, even just partially wrong? That is a risk I am afraid we can't take until we have proven that the danger is not as real as feared or we have adopted a sustainable way of life that ultimately sets things right.

…oh and I agree Al should be driving a Prius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]401864[/snapback]</div>

What do you mean? He did win a presidential election!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 7 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]401925[/snapback]</div>

Nice reply!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 7 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]401925[/snapback]</div>

This is the very reason I try to stay open minded and do as much research as I can on a subject and even then all for changes as new information flows in. GAIA Hypothesis was considered laughable when Lovelock and Margulis proposed it the first time and today is gaining much more support in light of new mathmatical models and understanding of complexity, chaos and systems theory. Alfred Wegener theorized Continental Drift in 1912 and again, people thought he was lost. How will Paul Hoffman's (and Daniel Shrag) Snowball Earth hypothesis pan out?

That being said there is a huge difference between scientists coming up with alternative scenarios and non-scientists with vested interests trying to do the same thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 7 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]401925[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. When Global Climate Change (I agree with you, that's a better term) was proposed, it was basically laughed at until one by one, scientists looked at the data and said, "Hey, there's something to this!" just like they did with Galileo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 8 2007, 03:47 AM) [snapback]402139[/snapback]</div>

The term that I have advocated using is Global Climate Disruption. While the atmosphere is warming, "disruption" is a more accurate description of how it is manifested on the earth. And the unfortunate aspect of it is that places that are already too hot (e.g., Africa) will likely get so hot as to be uninhabitable, while places that are already cold such as the UK and northern Europe will get even colder. A study done a few years ago by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution suggest that disruption of the North Atlantic Current due to arctic melting has already begun, and this will remove the moderating influence of the heat transfer of warm water from the Gulf Stream. Thus, England (which is at the same latitude as Labrador) would get significantly colder.
I also think that words such as "warming" and "climate change" sound too benign and don't reflect our role in what is occurring, so I lprefer the word "disruption".

 

Mmmh GCD or GCC .. come to think of it they both sound like government programs In either case, I like this terminology better, as it more accurately defines the change happening and both sides can take term seriously.

...however I am afraid that all this research, be it PRO or CON, be it government mandates and or any other form of persuasion is not truly effective until each single individual sees her/his own responsibility in the matter earth from within. Realistically the change we are trying to have people make is outwardly applied, hoping to "seep" in, when really the change, the true and fundamental drive to make the right choice has to come from within and "seep" outward. Changing your basic and fundamental believes, the core - the soul- of your being is very, very hard.

I don't know how else to describe it, but it I have always been environmentally aware (now more so then when I was younger) but I could always see that if I take and exploit something for my own; which I have done plenty of times in my lifetime, and probably will continue to do so in the future; that this action has an effect on my surroundings. What was missing was the realization that I was causal to those effects, and that I have the power to change. I have always felt that my connection to the outside, to nature, to environment, to live with and respect the planet is a fundamental part of my citizen contract with earth. I know it sounds all airy fairy and I am amused myself, but that is my modus operandi.

My family and I drive a Prius, we recycle, we partake in ocean/river clean ups, we have a solar intertie system. All these things are now second nature to to my kids, and I can only hope that as my kids grow up, that the strength and wisdom to respect the earth is growing within them.

...there !