Man Based Global Warming....

I thought this thread was about climate change not Al Gore. Why do the denialist's always sidetrack the discussion to one about the people rather then the message? Al Gore is no scientist, just a person using his profile to spread a message passed to him by scientists. Most scientists are not communicators, most communicators are not scientists. Al Gore is just the orator of the science beast, the brain is invisibly hidden. Like when you speak sometimes the words that come out your mouth are different to the ones your brain believes are correct. Get over it and get back to the science. Al Gore is one tiny part of a larger organism or movement. That is what I was trying to say a few posts ago. Al Gore isn't the centre of the debate he is just a debater. It is no different to Brittany Spears telling kids not to take drugs. Just because she doesn't live the talk doesn't make the message any less important. It is that Brittany Spears has a high profile among young people that she might be asked to relay such a message. Should we not bother to tell kids this message? well hell no. Should we get an unknown to speak the words? It would have less affect. Back to the topic at hand, is man based climate change real.

I'm in the tail end (I hope) of a record equalling heat wave, 10 days above 35 degrees Celsius and 6 of those days over 40 this time around. The last record was set in 2008. I know we don't just use extremes but climate change concerns here are about those extremes. Colder cold, like the greater than average snow falls in North America, higher highs, like our record equalling and maybe tomorrow breaking hot spell. These things are damaging our food production and economy. Ignoring this stuff is just stupid. Maybe these fluctuations are natural, a majority of climatologists believe they are influenced by human activity. The arguments have all been put on the table so there is no point in my dragging out a pile of links to prove my position. You can deny it all you like and as we gurgle down the toilet your denial will be duly noted.

The silly thing is we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuel with current technology and in most cases the payback on investment will take no more than the time it takes to pay off the average home mortgage, but governments are only in power for less than half that time so there is little incentive for them to act on such "long term" returns.

 

Malorn asked a most important question in post 576. "How do we solve it?" A question that deserves more responses than the very few received. This is important since there is an underlying assumption in this thread that greater urgency requires greater fear. The opposite may be true, the greater urgency requires the best long term plan.....something that is independent of emotion.

Rather than offer an (pure) opinion, let's take a look and see what has worked historically. A few examples:

1) Montreal Protocol of CFC releases
2) Successful Fishing Ground recovery approaches
3) Acid Rain Reduction

Let's now look at a few things that have not seemed to work so well:

1) CAFE regulations
2) Government sponsored research (e.g. Vehicle initiatives)
3) A grand repository for nuclear waste

Fill in your own examples and continue to see if there is some CO2 reduction approach that could work. I have my ideas.....and hopefully so does everyone else.

 

No, it is not, but it is what the foolish/those in denial would like to believe. Hint: just saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

Quite a bit. The same fools that were saying CO2 didn't matter, and screaming to drill everywhere and consume every last burnable resource were seriously embarassed/discredited by the run up in energy prices.

Well, that's the same tired stuff that has been said for 30+ years by the fossil fuel industry and the conservatives, and instead they've driven us in the exact opposite direction. Is this like AGW, something you were unaware of for the past several decades?

It and several others were not only Category 5's but whipped up previously unanticipated storm surge levels. They were also immense in size. The fact that they were happening literally back to back was also unanticipated.

At any rate, Katrina illustrated that one shouldn't put faith in fools who deny the obvious while telling you not to worry about the big picture, they have it covered. It was an eye opener for many, if not most. It illustrated that the "do nothing" mentality had to go.

What is "War in Iraqi" supposed to mean?

It has everything to do with it since I was referring to the discrediting of the bozos you are allied with. You should look at your fellow skeptics more closely as they are almost uniformly WRONG on evaluating such matters. Their judgement is awful. Like Lewis Black said, now that Bush has admitted global warming is real, he's not so sure anymore.

Peak oil isn't something they embrace. Oil prices weren't even supposed to break $50/bbl if you were listening to any of these clowns. But they live in a fantasy land with zero accountability.

The folks that share your views rarely ever get the correct answer. That should concern you. It would me.

 

My mind is now at rest, good point Shawn, Bush said climate change is real, it must be a total crock!

 

Alric and Shawn Clark, I know you continually talk about the money that exxon and company spend to undermine global warming, do you acknowledge the billions of dollars at stake on the pro-global warming side?
Not long ago I read the Deniers by Lawrence Solomon, maybe the book is all coincidence but much of it makes sense on a basic common sense level. AGW in all of its facets is the biggest of business.

 

It's the same billions of dollars. Only that instead of being given to companies that cause harm and provide no benefit to you they would be given to companies based on merit and that provide greater benefit to society.

 

I am talking about the billions invested in AGW research each year.
CLIMATE CHANGE: Wars Dwarf Warming in U.S. Budget
$7 billion according to this article from the US alone. How much money is invested in cap and trade companies? Think the UN or tthe federal government has any interest in creating another tax and the bureaucracy that is always created to enforce and collect the tax?

 

Oh please. Researchers make no money. At all. All the money is spent on the research itself buying equipment travel and personnel.

People do research because of the joy of science. Not to get rich.

 

I am not talking about getting rich necessarily, but do you think there are administrators at the institutions, universities etc who are getting rich? do you think there is pressure? I know people, and there is definitely a desire to preserve oneself, the income, the office, the empire. Waht do these institutions do if AGW is found to be non-existent, irrelevant aor unsolveable? $7 billion plus all of the private money is a lot of money. In the not for profits I have been involved in there is a ton of feeding at the various foundation and government grant troughs.

I am generalizing, but most of the administators of the not for profits cound not work for me for one day, if BS was music they would be consistently creating a symphony orchestra.

 

Not a problem if it is based on merit. This is independent of the science. The science is cross checked by institutions that compete with each other and with institutions in other countries. Fabricating data for grant money is professional suicide. If you are caught, and you will because there will be many other people working in the same field, you will not get grant money again, ever..

 

Perhaps you can name the sources of all this global warming money. It's pretty easy to name the sources of the denialist's money, energy companies committed to fossil fuels.

 

The federal government, the UN, do you think the $350 million Gore is spending to raise awareness of the impending AGW doom was gathered from altruistic sosurces? Always follow the money. Pat how much does Australia spend researching AGW?

 

How do you project the global climate in 2100 without models? I guess the IPCC is composed of fools because they clearly state that their predictions are based on multiple climate models running multiple scenarios. From: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Model-based projections for the future
Model projections are made based on an analysis of various computer climate models running within different SRES scenarios. As a result, predictions for the 21st century are as shown below.

• Surface air warming in the 21st century:
  • Best estimate for a "low scenario"[9] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
  • Best estimate for a "high scenario"[10] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
  • A temperature rise of about 0.1 °C per decade would be expected for the next two decades, even if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were kept at year 2000 levels.
  • A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.
  • Confidence in these near-term projections is strengthened because of the agreement between past model projections and actual observed temperature increases.
• Based on multiple models that all exclude ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[11] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
  • in a low scenario[9] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
  • in a high scenario[10] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
• It is very likely that there will be an increase in frequency of warm spells, heat waves and events of heavy rainfall.
• It is likely that there will be an increase in areas affected by droughts, intensity of tropical cyclones (which include hurricanes and typhoons) and the occurrence of extreme high tides.
• "Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic … In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century."

Scenario-specific projections are based on analysis of multiple runs by multiple climate models, using the various SRES Scenarios. "Low scenario" refers to B1, the most optimistic scenario family. "High scenario" refers to A1FI, the most pessimistic scenario family.

Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

• Scenario B1
  • Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
  • Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
• Scenario A1T
  • Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
  • Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
• Scenario B2
  • Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
  • Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
• Scenario A1B
  • Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
  • Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
• Scenario A2
  • Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
  • Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
• Scenario A1FI
  • Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
  • Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

If prediction of global climate conditions decades in the future is not based on climate models what is it based on?

As to the rest, simply hilarious. I'm apparently a Bush supporter even though I voted for Kerry and a supporter of the Iraq war even though that was the primary reason for me switching party affiliations.

 

Really? I didn't realize I had been "continually" talking about that aspect of it. I've said very little (if any directly) about the funding of the denialist camp. Instead, whining about how research science makes folks rich overlords has been almost entirely a denialist trait & defining characteristic.

Sometimes these comments remind me of that old Saturday Night Live commercial about robot attack insurance Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Old Glory
"What about robots?!"
"Oh! They're everywhere."
"I don't even know why the scientists make them."

 

You assume correctly

 

No thanks, you can keep it. I'd much rather deal with our bitter cold than with heat like that. At least I can bundle up for the cold

 

How do you predict anything without some sort of model? Doesn't mean that everything is based on a model in the "black box" sense that you are trying so hard to mislead folks into believing. We have actual temperature trends to look at, as well as changes in sea level, CO2 concentrations, etc. It isn't just model driven and divorced from reality as you portray it.

Rather than overpredicting, the models have tended to underpredict. I'm accustomed to building and rationalizing process models and aware of the dangers of extrapolation. Completely theoretical models often prove useless, but models that account for more and more, and include empirical factors and fits can prove invaluable. In my experience, the more you understand, the more easily the theoretical can be included. It is misapplication of theory or inability to step back and look at the bigger picture that gets one in trouble.

Hurricane and other weather prediction models have gotten extremely good over the years. Yet, with your approach we should ignore the storm watches/warnings as "alarmist." Why board up and/or evacuate? Chances are they won't be able to pinpoint where the eye will make landfall precisely...and the windspeed might be off by 20 mph when it does. Hey, we should all just ignore the storm and continue about our routines rather than upsetting the economy by preparing for it.

I've watched you in a number of threads intentionally distort everything you can to create something divorced from reality. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince others, or yourself, but your powers of self-delusion and self-contradiction are phenomenal.

I was referring to who you aligned with on AGW. You've aligned with folks incapable of correctly spotting trends--ones who only become cognizant after the fact. And from what I saw of your analysis of that temp. chart I'm not at all surprised. Perhaps you can't see it. Wouldn't surprise me as you don't give the impression of being the "big picture" type.

Per your own posting you were a Bush supporter back in 2000 and straight ticket GOP in 2002, so no, I don't think I'm off base. It just goes to show how slow you are to recognize what is going on...yet you seem to think you have it all figured out even though you tend to run years behind those paying attention to the trends. Consider this: you doubt others' judgement in such matters while in a relatively short span you've gone from oblivious to alarmed to ardent denialist. :twitch:

 

Maybe I missed it, and I'm not going to wade through 70 pages to find out, but we already appear to have longer ice-free periods in the Canadian Arctic, the Northwest Passage

The danger has to do with Canada's apathy towards maintaining sovereignty. At one time, during the Cold War, Canada maintained an extensive network of manned radar sites in the Arctic. These were all shuttered from 1975-1986

Due to Canada’s apathy, there are no submarines or warships patrolling this area. Why is this important? Because of the potential for enormous reserves of oil and natural gas in the Arctic area. Eg: Beaufort Sea area

As it now stands, Canada is almost completely unaware of what ships are even in the arctic region.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/the_big_melt/

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2009/battleforthearctic/


One direct consequence is Russian ships using submersibles to plant CIS flags on the ocean floor that Canadians think they can claim. Well, unless Canada is willing to do the same – requiring a huge investment in an Arctic presence again – then Canadians shouldn’t piss and moan too much if a foreign country takes resources from the Arctic region

 

I know this is a highly controversial statement but there is no way the world is going to be using/needing that oil and gas. Once people grasp the seriousness of GW, our economies will move quickly toward being carbon free - by 2040.

Self preservation is a powerful motivator - the abstractness of this massive threat is the only reason we haven't reacted strongly against it as yet.

And once we start weaning off of fossil fuels, enormous benefits in economics and health, will speed up the transition.

It's too bad Harper is betting on a status quo energy policy - Canada could benefit greatly from getting ahead of the curve.

 

350 million is for an AWARENESS campaign, not research. After 12 years of the president denying climate change there is some fixing to do. None of that $350M will go to research, just TV, radio and print ads. God, PepsiCo spends even more on advertising. Its total domestic advertising budget was $1.31 billion in 1999 Soft drink company marketing tactics: the experts sound off
$1.177B was the US government budget allocation to climate change research for 2007. That was all aspects of climate change research. Less than Pepsi's domestic ad budget for 1999. Pepsi is small potatoes compared to Texaco or Exxon-Mobil, what do you think they pay to protect their interests in fossil fuel? Then the US auto industry, not as liquid as Pepsi but a lot to look out for. Even they agree with climate change now, have you seen all the hybrids they are working on?

Why don't the scientists with snouts in the trough go to the oil companies for funding? Could it be they believe their own findings?