patronizing those who are alarmed by climate change

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 16 2006, 01:13 PM) [snapback]272316[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, they were only good enough to get man up to the moon and back time and again!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 16 2006, 04:56 PM) [snapback]272401[/snapback]</div>

Touche... I wasn't even alive then so I can't argue against your notion... but a lot the notions naysayers are spreading are bunk.... if you even care to read the links I've passed out. Like the sulfate aerosol study that showed how sulfate aerosols were in at least part responsible for that trend... even factoring out other variables such as the sun.

Alternative theories
Various alternative hypotheses have been proposed to explain the observed increase in global temperatures, including but not limited to:
The warming is within the range of natural variation.
The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age.
The warming is a result of variances in solar irradiance.
At present, these have little support within the climate science community as an explanation for recent warming.

 

I find it curious that the Sun is currently the most active (magnetically) that it has been in the last 1000 years and that it underwent a sharp increase in the last 100 years.

Solar activity reaches new high

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("PhysicsWeb")</div>

The Sun's magnetic field and solar wind protects the earth from cosmic rays. The more active the Sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth. Scientists are researching the theory that cosmic rays may influnce cloud production. The more cosmic rays you have the more clouds are produced. Clouds have a cooling effect on the earth. So, when the Sun is more active, fewer cosmic rays reach the earth, and fewer clouds are produced, resulting in warming.

In flux

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Economist")</div>

 

Actually, I have a read a couple of articles by the naysayers saying that studies that use computer simulations are off (conveniently ignoring that predictions have an equal probability of underestimating the effect as it does overestimating). Thanks for the counterargument!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 16 2006, 04:56 PM) [snapback]272401[/snapback]</div>

Marlin,

An interesting study. I found something that either opposes or incorporates the previous study (depending on how one looks at it)

Solar variation theory


"Main article: Solar variation theory
Modeling studies reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) did not find that changes in solar forcing were needed in order to explain the climate record for the last 4 or 5 decades. [13]. These studies found that volcanic and solar forcings may account for half of the temperature variations prior to 1950, but the net effect of such natural forcings has been roughly neutral since then [14]. In particular, the change in climate forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 was estimated to be 8 times larger than the change in forcing due to increasing solar activity over the same period [15]. Since the TAR, various studies (Lean et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2005) have suggested that changes in irradiance since pre-industrial times are less by a factor of 3-4 than in the reconstructions used in the TAR (e.g. Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, Lean, 2000.). Stott et al. [16] estimated solar forcing to be 16% or 36% of greenhouse warming. In general the level of scientific understanding of the variance in direct solar irradiance is very low [17].
However, some researchers (e.g. [18]) have proposed that feedbacks from clouds or other processes enhance the direct effect of solar variation. Solanki, et al (2004) found that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years is at its highest level in 8000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, finding other comparably high levels of activity in the past.[19]. Solanki reports that past solar behavior implies that there is only an 8% probability that this current period of high activity can last another 50 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

If anything else, the study you found and this one here indicate t

 

Often when the Sun is dismissed as a cause, it is the magnitude of the increase of solar radiation that reaches the earth that is pointed to. It is said that the heat from the increased radiation is not enough to account for the increase in temperature.

But, what about the indirect effects of increased solar activity, such as the decrease in cosmic rays that I point to, and the possible link to cloud creation. I don't think these have been explored enough.

I do think it is quite a coincidence that the Sun is the most magnetically active that its been in the past 1000 years (assuming they are correct). I also think it's an extrordinary coincidence that the Sun's activity has increased sharply in the past 100 years (again assuming they are correct), which is also the period pointed at as having the greatest temperature increase.

 

well i just got back from watching An Inconveinient Truth and i liked it. sure its slanted towards one end and i welcome the opportunity for an opposing view with charts, facts, observations and data that would suggest that global warming is not happening....

ya...thats what i thought. only a bunch of people saying it aint gonna happen with NOTHING to back it up

 

Marlin,

I definately agree that more studies should be aimed in that direction... the more data and information the better.

However, I am inclined to disagree with your previous concusion on the following basis...:

Just to reveal more info that I personally wasn't aware of and think is applicable for those trying to understand this:

sun·spot
n.
Any of the relatively cool dark spots appearing periodically in groups on the surface of the sun that are associated with strong magnetic fields.

"The Sun's magnetic field and solar wind protects the earth from cosmic rays."

That may be true, but I thought that this was the role of Earth's magnetic field:

"The magnetosphere shields the surface of the Earth from the charged particles of the solar wind. It is compressed on the day (Sun) side due to the force of the arriving particles, and extended on the night side."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

(refer to graphic on top right of page)

 

A naysayer switches sides:
"Yes: the science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous. As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert."
"In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences joined the science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan and other nations in a joint statement saying, "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.""
"During the 1960's, smog in America was increasing at a worrisome rate; predictions were that smog controls would render cars exorbitantly expensive. Congress imposed smog regulations, and an outpouring of technical advances followed. Smog emissions in the United States have declined by almost half since 1970, and the technology that accomplishes this costs perhaps $100 per car."
"Similarly, two decades ago a "new Silent Spring" was said to loom from acid rain. In 1991, Congress created a profit incentive to reduce acid rain: a system of tradable credits that rewards companies that make the fastest reductions. Since 1991 acid rain emissions have declined 36 percent, and the cost has been only 10 percent of what industry originally forecast."

Feeling the heat.

"Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.

This brief will address the three points above and, in an appendix, offer non-jargon explanations of the most important recent findings of greenhouse science. But the pressing point of this briefing is not so much scientific as it is practical—that action against artificial global warming may not prove nearly as expensive or daunting as commonly believed. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than projected, while declining faster than expected. This gives cause to hope that artificial greenhouse gases can be controlled reasonably cheaply and without wrenching sacrifices to the global economy. And if there is a chance of an economical approach to greenhouse-gas reduction, then what are we waiting for? Let's start now."

View full pdf:

Debate is over.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 16 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]272404[/snapback]</div>

What notion? Are you suggesting the moon landings didn't happen?

I don't buy into AlGore's alarmist hype. To you, that makes me a naysayer. I see myself as a pragmatist. Al's "junk" science isn't proof of mankind's impact on the Earth's climate. There isn't a single scientist who can prove anything of the sort. There are computer models focusing on geological flashes of time (i.e., hundreds of years) and there are some looking at the history of the Earth. Models aren't proof, and they're only as good as the data in them. No one on either side would skew or cherry-pick data to prove their case, right? From your POV, only naysayers would stoop so low. Have you considered the reverse argument?

Has mankind polluted Mother Earth? Yep. Should we stop? Yep. Are we doing so? Some are and some aren't. Will it help to make the planet better? It can't hurt, but stop insisting that we're doomed if we don't change. How much impact will anything mankind does make? No one knows for sure. Those models may provide some clues ... if the data is valid.

IMO, AlGore is the exact wrong person to convey the message. Having a politician as a spokesperson (he invented it, right?) kills its validity by association for some and it endorses it for others. Me, I want facts and scientific data. I want to draw my own conclusions based upon that and not someone else's interpretation. I want it unfiltered and raw so I don't have to question it's validity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 17 2006, 08:32 AM) [snapback]272670[/snapback]</div>

This reads just like the Creationists arguments against the theory of evolution.

Enough said.

 

im not asking for concrete indisputable proof (especially since that is the ONLY acceptable proof for all ye naysayers) saying global warming is a myth. i just interested in seeing data, charts, observations, etc that may suggest global warming is not being accelerated by man.

that is all gore did. so i believe in equal presentation of all sides of an issue. problem is, no one has come up with ANY kind of evidence other than to say that gore's data is flawed. well present me data that says we are not affecting global warming...

still waiting...


still waiting...


still waiting...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 17 2006, 10:42 AM) [snapback]272677[/snapback]</div>

'Nuff said! What the hell does that mean? Arguing Creation vs. evolution isn't part of this, but ...

... using the current time scale we're all familiar with - one day is 24 hrs, one year is 365 days, etc. - fossil records have no problem PROVING the earth is much, much, older than Creationalists believe. Carbon dating isn't the work of the debil. There's some proof right there!

Now, where is AlGore's proof that mankind is contributing to global climate change? I need to see some data showing the % of climate change caused by the course of nature on earth and the sun vs. the amount caused by mankind ... with science to back it up (not simulations, projections, speculation, or commentary).

The alarmists are going to find opposition to their beliefs until some reasonable scientific proof can be provided.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 17 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]272766[/snapback]</div>

Your arguments ring just as hollow as of those who argue that there is no scientific proof of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that human activity is a major contributor to global warming. The opponents have not been able to cite any studies by legitimate climatology experts which were subjected to peer review. All I have seen are articles by physicians, geologists, etc., who have no expertize in the field of climate change. The proliferation of name calling and disrespect by the nay sayers does not add credence to their arguments.

 

If Al Gore says it you know it has to be false - after all he claimed he invented the Internet too!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ Jun 17 2006, 02:09 PM) [snapback]272788[/snapback]</div>

That is another blatant Republican lie, but then what should we expect from the likes of you.

This is what Gore really said:

This is what Newt Gingrich had to say on the subject:

Here is the link to the Snopes Urban Legends Reference Pages discussing this issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 17 2006, 11:42 AM) [snapback]272677[/snapback]</div>

I'm afraid this is the problem. Just like the Church telling Columbus the world was flat. They've always been wrong but people still believe in false gods telling lies. Beliefs in anything are dangerous because they are based on no evidence and people with beliefs have no problem ignoring evidence. This helps make societies stable but if eveyone were that way we'd still be living in caves.

The proof of global warming as preseneted in the movie and in most of the literature has zip to do with any computer modeling. It isn't needed. All that is required is simple grade school mathematics to calculate how much CO2 we release each year and how much that adds to our temperatures, plus simple temperature records showing what the temperatures have done. No model needed because there's already been enough global warmnig to measure what is going on right now, not 1000 years into the future. And there's plenty of data in the movie over several ice age cycles to prove what happens from non-human caused temperature cycles and how they were different. Not to mention we have plenty of current data right now to measure the effects of different atmospheres on several planets in our own solar system.

Once you accept those facts you should not need computer models to tell you that if we have done x damage to date with y co2 release, we will do more damage tomorrow with greater co2 release. Only then do you need fancy computers to try to predict how bad it will be, and the arguements can start over whose model is best but with the thousands of years of records we have it should be pretty simple to pick which models fit the facts based on past history. It is not like we are starting to look today with no past records.

The only other need for computers is to try to predict who gets screwed where. Measuring global warming is child's play. Knowing the effect of where it gets warmer, wetter, drier, or colder is complicated, but irrellevent to the issue.

And Al Gore's movie was almost made for the skeptics! It was so conservative in it's predictions it was quite ridiculous. I'll give just one example since Malorn brought it up. It was silly predicting a rise of sea level of 20 feet when clearly it has to be 40 feet! The 20 feet comes from the ice melting on Antarctica, or on Greenland. We already saw in the movie clearly they are both melting. Therefore sealevels have to rise 40 feet not 20. There was no evidence provided in the movie at all as to why one would stop melting!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 17 2006, 11:32 AM) [snapback]272670[/snapback]</div>

By notion I meant what you said. I was not arguing that itself. That should clear it up.

As far as the evidence goes... there has been quite a bit given in the the three main threads near the top of the Environmental Discussion... I understand not ALL of it is legit (models are questionable), but there is PLENTY of evidence to sort through. I went through his book and I felt he gave good evidence... but if you take a look at the threads you will see that we have posted quite a bit of evidence and numerous studies... yet it seems some are still turning a blind eye and scapegoating on Al Gore.
----------

"If Al Gore says it you know it has to be false - after all he claimed he invented the Internet too!"

A truly pathetic argument.

Well said IsrAmeri.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 17 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]272868[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for acknowledging your comment about UNVIABLE computers in the 60s and 70s was wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 17 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]272868[/snapback]</div>

None of the evidence nor studies you mention come right out to say "Mankind has contributed X% to the climate changes we've seen in the last Y years." A value of X below 1% would be a statistical glitch, and a value of Y smaller than 200 years would be a blink of the eye, geologically speaking. That's why the models and simulation results - the very things you agree may not be LEGIT - are so important to the alarmists. The models have to spell out damnation if alarmists hope to gain any traction.

Scientists have been analyzing CO2 levels in trapped glacial ice bubbles and fossilized organic remains for years. They want to understand what's been happening on Earth through the ages. That's what they do for a living. I get the feeling some of them would like to be heroes that help save the world. Well this is their chance and many are running with it for all they're worth. I'm not crapping on their studies; however, none of them have definitive proof.

Oftentimes, the rebuttal to the need to see proof is "What if you're wrong, and where's your proof?" Ya got me on that one. I'm not sounding any alarms so I don't think I need to prove anything. However, there's no black-and-white proof either way. That's what I've been saying all along. AlGore's movie is ... well, a movie. It's what could happen if he is right. By the same token, the world's climate could do a 180 in the next 100, 1,000, 10,000 years too. Who can say with absolute certainty?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 17 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]272868[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say it's inaccurate because AlGore said it. I said he's the wrong spokesperson if you want this idea to be apolitical and to be taken seriously. Next, get some real data to back up the claims.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Jun 17 2006, 10:32 PM) [snapback]272886[/snapback]</div>

Exactly what movie did you see? Both these issues were fully covered and proved in the movie.

The evidence on global warming being man made is based on four simple concepts presented in the movie.

First: The measurable differences today are vastly different from past ice age cycles before man was even here.

Second these past cycles of ice ages and warming have tracked CO2 enough to show it as the main cause of the temperature changes over many cycles.

Third we know that CO2 has measurable heat retaining effects on the atmosphere easily measured explaining the above.

Fourth: We know how much extra CO2 we have contributed to the atmosphere from industrialization.

Nothing else is necessary to prove this. Of course there are other causes of warming too. I doubt it is sunspots but they could have effects too that could only make what we've done worse. The movie didn't cover these or say much about methane, or other warming gases. The more other causes the nay-sayers come up with the more serious the problem becomes.

And regarding the computer models which are not necessary for the proof of the above:
The movie states clearly that every computer model error proven so far has neglected to account for some of these positive feed back issues that make the problem orders of magnitude worse than the models were predicting.

Anybody who thinks global warming is based on computer models is either not looking at the facts or grew up recently and never learned to use log tables. Computers just solve problems faster. The facts of global warming are entirely based in the movie on simple measurements with instruments like thermometers .

Regarding the thermometers part, the movie didn't explain exactly how we get temperatures from 200000 years ago, so I found out how they measure climate temperatures from ice cores here:

http://tinyurl.com/krc24

Again nothing here you need a computer for except to calculate faster! Just simple grade school math for most of it. A bit more math if you want to do the carbon dating.


Making this all overly complicated and bringing in endless red herrings is the technique of GM in trying to destroy the Prius sales. And the oil companies were on tv today in force on Meet the Press I think!

Anybody see that? Wasn't it wierd how enviromentally friendly they pretended to be but they clearly arranged in advance to not let the commentator mention global warming at all! The one issue that could really kill their business. They are all for other energy sources long as we don't stop using their oil till every drop in the earth's core is gone! They want us to keep burning oil fast as they can find it and pump it for the next 30 to 50 years at least.

The other big point they made for no reason was we should not be energy independent! They want us to stay dependent so we will keep control of the world's oil for them clearly!

Within those two limits they gave full support to Ethanol, wind power, nuclear, etc.

Hope this makes all the anti-global warming people feel good being in the pockets of big oil more than at the gas pump.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jun 18 2006, 12:56 PM) [snapback]273115[/snapback]</div>

So, you're saying this quote is wrong?

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun."

That quote is a direct contradiction to your CO2 arguments. It's from the recent Canada Free Press article challenging AlGore's claims. The person quoted is a professor of paleoclimatology, and this is his area of expertise. What's yours?

Believe it or not, I want the US to be energy independent, and I want the environment cleaned up. Renewable energy? Yep. Reduced emissions? Yep. Fines for big polluters? Yep. Can any of that hurt? Nope. I'm doing my part because I think it's the right thing to do. I just don't believe AlGore's alarmist hype.

At the end of the day, you still can't prove how much, if any, climate change is directly attributable to mankind. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for debate ... and if you do know the answer, how much is it?