Just curious, do you have any actual thoughts on the matter? Posting links is fine, but why not offer your own opinions - and the reasoning behind those opinions? You have the opportunity to initiate an intelligent discussion, but you settle for snarky web snippits.
I'm curious to understand the difference between believing in god (per the statement in your signature), and believing in global warming. If the absence of definitive proof (in your mind) makes something a scam - and assuming that you believe god is not a scam - what is your definitive proof for his existence?
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I'm firmly in the wait and see camp. I remember the grave concern that the earth was about to plunge into another ice age in the early 70's. Polar ice is clearly disappearing. The earth seems to be warming but I would be very cautious about jumping on a cause right now. None of the theories about the mechanism have been scientifically proven. Has anyone considered that these climatological fluctuations are just background noise? I hear very competent and qualified people arguing the greenhouse gas mechanism, the solar activity mechanism, and the nay=sayers pointing to two extraordinarily cold winters as evidence that the earth is in a cooling cycle. Right now all this is just a gedanke experiment.
Maybe there is global warming, maybe not. But those who say that it's a farce simply because the evidence is still being gathered should remember one thing... the earth was round long before there was evidence to "prove" it.
Lack of evidence does not equal lack of validity. Science is discovery; it's truth in progress.
Given the compelling scientific and circumstantial evidence - and the potential severity of the consequences - waiting for incontrovertible proof is risky business.
First off, there is a big difference between weather and climate.
SECONDLY...so a bunch of climate scientists hit a cold snap, and you insinuate that the whole global warming thing is off. You are seriously using this as part of your argument? Or are you trying to mock all of our intelligences. Even the naysayers who pick and choose facts on both sides of the 'debate' have better pointed ideas than this...
Please stop posting pointless weather breifings as an attempt to incite a 50 response idealog on anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by Ross Warner on March 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Andy Rooney and Henry David Thoreau are not all they are cracked up to be. - Alfred E. Neuman.
Posted by Greg Maklae on March 23, 2009 at 6:36 AM
Does this really belong in a photographic forum???? This site seems to be loosing its direction. It is for photography, not religion, not half baked science, just pure and simple photography. But since you asked, I'm in the wait and see, leaning toward hoax. Since when do politicains, who cannot even run the country, qualify as science experts? I've heard reporters claim, "this has not happened in a 1000 years, has to be auto emissions". I did not know cave man drove a Chevy. The earth's normal cycle put out far more "pollutants" than man could ever dream of. As a side note, the snow is still knee deep here.
If you dont think nature photography is not related to GW, you should come to Colorado and see how the lovely green forests are being completely reduced to barren wastelands due to drought and warmer winters (resulting in a massive pine beetle epidemic). Or go a bit further north to watch the lovely glaciers retreat into oblivion. And thats just the tip o the iceberg when it comes to the massive environmental changes and effect on animal and plant species.
Im tired of the "i was around in the 70s when there was hoopla about a coming ice age, blah blah" arguments too, I was around in the 70s and i recall the stories too, but comparing the magnitude of the two scenarios is ridiculous; the science and observations that support the current warming are just overwhelming compared to a few stories that hyped cooling in the 70s. There's no comparison, its orders of magnitude greater (the evidence of AGW).
Posted by Greg Maklae on March 24, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Maybe this web site will explain why I still have a couple feet of snow in the woods, and water falls still frozen.
In journalism school, reporters are always taught that they have to be impartial. The easiest way to do this is to find a person with an opposing viewpoint and give them equal time or voice. The problem is that this can lead to the presumption of a lack of concensus or an apparant debate, while it is just a few, loud people are getting equal air time...therefore, the fact that lou dobbs had a guest on who pulled select facts that even could be misleading doesn't sway the scientific concensus, nor does the fact that you have snow in your yard (weather does not equal cljmate).
How can facts be misleading? People love to point out that the ice on antarctica is getting thicker, so that must mean that the whole thing is off. But critically examining the issue shows that it has never been above 7F at the south pole. Also, as air gets warmer, it holds more moisture. So warming, but still below freezing air would make the pole thicker, even though it sounds like it would prove the contrary...
Lastly, when you see that a viewpoint is being pushed by a large group like the heartland institute, it's good to follow the money. This group is funded by many major players in energy, and it's mission is not environmental. Their tagline on google says it is...
"Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets."
Posted by Greg Maklae on March 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM
People are going to believe what they want to believe, and will find flaws in all data but their own. This is just human nature. You can always find and "expert" to verify your case, but the bottom line is there is too little data, over too short a period, from too few places to say man is responsible for any climate change. I was in the science field for nearly 30 years, 6 of which were spent doing enviromental chemistry, and know when data is flawed or lacking. I just find environmentalist to be a scary lot, who are trying to dicate how we should live. They say we need to develop clean power to cut carbon emission, but who is first in line to oppose wind turbines here in NY and VT, the environmentalists. Nuclear power, forget it! Drilling in this country, fat chance. Hydro power, no can do, may hurt a fish.
Greg, you use "environmentalist" as if it were a dirty word, and that is truly sad. I assume you are referring to a smaller group of perhaps overzealous environmentalists, but the fact that you chose not to present your argument that way shows your bias. Your last five sentences are sounding an awful lot like "conspiracy-theory", and as a scientist you ought to know to avoid that trap and focus on the facts, not the political hype.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that "there is too little data..."? We have a large amount of historical information, from ice core samples, trees etc. I really think you severely underestimate our capacity to alter our environment. Are you in denial over CFC's role in ozone depletion?? Are you in denial over the fact that weve rendered large areas of the ocean a wasteland, and historically driven many animal and plant species into extinction?? Are you in denial that we have cut down ~95% of the ancient forest?? Are you in denial that we are on our way to laying the rainforest to waste?? Are you in denial that human pollution can affect climate/weather?? How about contrails--no affect on albedo?? Can we just fill the atmosphere with smog and hope that the big ol' atmoshpere will just take care of itself, no need to worry about the air we breathe? If we can dam up virtually every wild river, turn canyons into vast lakes, forests into Plains, swamps into deserts, why is it so hard for you to accept that we can alter our climate as welll?? If i'm sounding like one of those 'overzelous' environmentalists you are so afraid of, i guess i accept responsibility, because it's my future as well as yours that is at stake, and I will fight for it.
I'm a meteorologist with an MS in atmospheric science, and i was extremely skeptical about AGW at first, i became convinced through much study of original research, through my own knowlege and experience in modeling and climate forcing, and through common sense. When there is scientific consensus (and there is, despite the vocal minority) you are being foolish to proclaim that "people are going to believe what they want to believe".
Posted by Greg Maklae on March 25, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Stan
You make some very convincing arguments, and maybe I will reconsider my view point. Maybe the larger question should be how do we maintain our quality of life, the economy and advance technology, yet still live in harmony with nature. I do get very upset when the life of a human is placed below that of sacrificing a few acres of land. For example, a couple years ago a man froze to death in his car along I-87 in NY, because cell towers were fought by a group saying they would distract from the landscape, preventing him from calling for help. Wind power is fought because manufacturing the cement used to fabricate the base would pollute the air, roads would have to be constructed to the sites of the towers. We are not talking a multi lane highway here, just an access road. Just read a book on hiking in the Adirondacks, one good line stated the black bears are no dummies, give them a road, they will gladly walk it instead of bush wacking. Both sides have to come together and have intelligent dialogue, and work out a good middle ground, not flat out reject the others adgenda. But, without viable alternatives in place, we cannot scrap what we are now doing, and continue to grow as a society. No one source of energy will provide all our needs, we need to develop solar, wind, hydro (including tidal flow), nuclear, NG and hydrogen. But currently the not in my back yard mentality, old regulations, fear of the new, and political correctness are hampering all efforts. Hence we are stuck in limbo.
Thanks for the response, Greg, i appreciate your civil tone (its something you find only at NPN and not most places on the internet!) I completely agree that we need to find common ground, and that political correctness and political agendas should not stand in the way of progess that will be beneficial for all. There have been lengthy discussions before on this site and elsewhere about the 'root' problem of our need for energy etc, whether the driving force is a growing population or a growing rampant consumerism is another debate. IMO, one shouldn't make the assumption that we must have more energy, that progress must include more roads, more access, more food etc. Especially in this society, we have all been raised to think it is some innate right to have cell towers on every corner, and unlimited hot water, unlimited gasoline etc. And we can waste all we want because everything is magically recycled and perfectly disposed of. I dont agree with this philosophy, it hasn't been the case for all cultures at all times. But i agree with you, sitting in stagnation and throwing accusations and insults at each other is not an acceptable way to deal with these issues.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 29, 2009 at 10:56 PM
"The product pictured above works to rid a board of trolls"
Hey Steve,
I think, in order to best deal with this kind of troll, a different type of lube is required. No Whataye meen? :)
Stan, you stated; "Are you in denial over the fact that weve rendered large areas of the ocean a wasteland, and historically driven many animal and plant species into extinction??" It seems to me your implication is that in recent decades mankind has driven more species to extinction than became extinct in any other similar time periods. If my interpretation of your statement is correct, could you lead me to the scientific study that provides the data that supports that conclusion?
Richard Leakey's "Sixth Age of Extinction", which we now live in, attributes the massive current rate of extinction to humanities influence on our environment, which has greatly accelerated in the past few hundred years. Surely you can see that by eliminating half of the rainforests, where the majority of living species exist, that species are in jeapordy. I've seen estimates anywhere from 100 to 10,000 times the rate as the "natural" background rate of extinction thanks to mankind's influence. There are numerous papers on the subject, if you're interested i suggest you research the subject. A widely publicized study in "Nature" (Nature 454, 100-103, July 3, 2008) argued that exctinction is being seriously underestimated, even by groups such as the International Union of Conservation of Nature, which regularly puts out numbers on the extinction rate.
It's funny (sad) that species extinction is a very serious thing, but because it isnt as politically charged as "Global Warming" you dont hear much about it in the press. On the other hand, you dont have a lot of websites attacking or denying this either, as you do with GW!
Posted by Carl Donohue on April 2, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Hey Stan,
Another important issue with this is 'extinction debt' .. the idea that extinctions continue long after (some say 10 years) beyond the time we think we might have stopped an activity that causes extinctions (logging, etc). Google's your friend on the subject.
We know for fact that there were periods in the earth's history when it was far warmer than it is now and periods when it was much colder. Isn't it a bit bold to assume that if there is continued change, and that change is within the extremes experienced before the industrial age, that man is responsible for the fluctuations?
When the Colorado River compact was made our scientists had studied the weather cycles and were confident that the study period was adequate. We later found out the cycle was far longer than was realised at the time and the period that had been studied was actually just the peak years. In those dim nearly forgotten years of the far past when I was in college we were given "a new truth" nearly every year that contradicted one of last year's "truths."
Do you suspect that we don't yet know all of creations secrets and many of the things we now know for fact will turn out to be incorrect? Not to many years ago man "knew" the world was both flat AND the center of universe. Both beliefs were based on observation and less than complete information. Might our information be less than complete or our analysis be less than accurate?
We've recently heard that our scientists "lost" a piece of ice the size of California and that maybe the polar ice caps aren't really smaller after all (they had failed to calibrate their instruments) and an audit of where NOAA was collecting temperature data found many collection points were not according to standards including one in the middle of a black top parking lot and one by an industrial buildings AC exhaust.
Mankind's history is one of advancement and learning, but we also should recognize that we probably don't "know" as much as we think we do.
Smart people dont claim they know anything with certitude, Dave. But as several posts above have pointed out, we make decisions every day based on the quality and quantity of evidence, important decisions that have profound consequences. If a tornado is forecast to hit your house, even if there was a 90% chance it will miss your house, would you sit and watch tv or would you take shelter?
Isn't it a bit bold to assume that if there is continued change, and that change is within the extremes experienced before the industrial age, that man is responsible for the fluctuations?
The evidence suggests that the rate of change currently is exceptional, perhaps unprecedented. We know the quantity of CO2 is increasing. We know a good portion of that is our doing. We know that even a slight increase of a minor gas can have a big effect on the forcing. It's been tested countless times in theory, and the theory is matching the observations. Your "bold" to me is just plain common sense.
Posted by wally emmert on April 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I think everything runs in cycles , especially the weather and climate change,, look back to the iceage then dinosaurs, more recently the dust bowl,,,.. Alot of nasa scientists have said that weather and climate change are caused by sun spot activity only wich makes alot more sense than saying the human race is causing it, after all we are a huge part of nature....I would much rather listen to nasa scientists than something thats lead by Al gore...
Posted by wally emmert on April 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I think everything runs in cycles , especially the weather and climate change,, look back to the iceage then dinosaurs, more recently the dust bowl,,,.. Alot of nasa scientists have said that weather and climate change are caused by sun spot activity only wich makes alot more sense than saying the human race is causing it, after all we are a huge part of nature....I would much rather listen to nasa scientists than something thats lead by Al gore...
I'm all for being responsible, and existing in as much harmony with our planet as possible. I am not for an agenda that uses scare tactic propoganda in an effort to further impose more control, and limitations on our lives. I think it's safe to say that our climate is warming. How much of this is due to human existance is the big question. If it is an insignificant amount, then there is not much we can do about it anyway. That's not to argue thet we then should abandon the efforts that we are making to clean up our act. I just think that telling everyone what they can drive, how long they can have their lights on, is a a little extreme. Now we face huge tax increases just for maintaining a standard of living that we have become accustomed to. The climate of the earth ebbs and flows from warmer to cooler in a natural cycle. Some places that are deserts today, were tropical paradises in the past, and vice-a-versa. I think the earth will be fine, it's just human existance that may be threatened. I am confused about the increased carbon creates increases in temps. If there is carbon trapped in the ice that is melting? Then wouldn't it be safe to assume that carbon is a result of warming, that causes the melting. So what comes first, the warming, or the carbon? Anyway, I think all of us as photographers have an intimate sense of responsibility to our planet. I love the beauty we experience as a result of our passion. I think sometimes we react on an emotional level, instead of a rational one. This often leads to over reaction. I'm not trying to make light of the situation, it just frustrates me to hear this argument from a political viewpoint. Aren't we all just temporary stewards of this incredible gift that has been given to us? If so, we should be making a better effort.
Stan,
I totally feel your pain with regards to the forests in your state. It is heartbreaking to hear about, and see documented in some of your images. Colorado is a magnificent state. My question is, would this be still happening if we were not here to witness it. This might very well be part of the natural processes that the earth goes through. It just sucks that we are here to witness destruction to some of the places that are near to our hearts. In an emotional respones to this, we might over react. This over reaction surely would include having to have something to blame it on. Mankind is a good whipping boy for those out there with a cause. It makes me sad to see places become less than they were. But I also think we should be reasonable when we put the blame on ourselves for things. That usually results in knee jerk responses, and so called solutions that really don't do anything but make people "feel good about themselves". No bad intentions here, just trying to point out an alternative way of thinking about it. It still sucks.
Chris, when you go behind the scenes, ignore all the political hoopla, you can find plenty of solid science, unfettered by political bent or bias, that supports the idea that we are playing a role in climate change. It's there to be found if you are willing to look for it, even on the internet its fairly easy to see through who has an agenda and who doesnt.
As for your question on the beetle epedemic, there's no way to know for sure whether "it would still be happening..." For sure, it is part of a natural cycle and has occured to certain extent in the past. The fact that recent winters have been considerably warmer than in the past has almost certainly had a negative impact on the epedemic (since a really cold spell would kill the beetle larvae). Our forests are also weaker due to poor historical forestry practices (fire suppression, clear-cutting etc) and long-term drought (also partly a function of climate change). How much a role man has had in this really is not an issue, the fact that we probably have had any negative impact should concern anyone who cares about our environment. And as i pointed out, this impact is only one small example of many.
I dont completely understand your confusion/question about CO2. No one to my knowlege is arguing that CO2 in ice is a major contribution to CO2 increase. Melting ice results in water, which is a possible sink for CO2. The increase in CO2 thanks to human activity over the past couple hundred years can be directly related to the increase in atmospheric CO2. There are some 'junk science' (to use RK's term) folks out there arguing to the contrary, but they really are fringe lunatics. Incidentally, automobile use is only a small percentage of the increase, a greater percentage is the burning of fossil fuels in power plants. Land usage (burning down the rainforests) also increases CO2, since the sink (trees) are no longer there.
Stan,
Thanks for noticing my post, and responding. I didn't realize this thread was a couple of weeks old. Scientifically, I'm just a guy that gets most of my info from the radio, on the way to work. And from the news of course. It is my observation, that everyone on both sides of the issue from a political standpoint has an agenda. I think that's sad. One side shows polar bears supposedly stranded on an iceberg. The other side calls global warming a hoax. Somewhere in between we have an issue that needs to be responded to. I think we have recognized, and have made huge leaps of progress there. I just hate the political argument, and posturing involved whenever there is a "crisis". It would be great if more of us could bring awareness, and a sense of responsibility to the masses through our images. I sure didn't want to sound indifferent, or insensative to the issue. So how do we get Brazil to stop clearing the rainforest? Or stop China from continuing to pursue it's own industrial revolution. I have a friend that went there last year to tour some of the mines. He is a mineral collector/dealer. He said that basically, he didn't see the sun for ten days due to the polution in the air. I find that troublesome. After seeing Mike Andersons' images from the Li River, I wanted to be able to go there myself. Maybe that impressive red sky is partly due to the particulate matter in the air. I'd love to continue this discussion, as I could use the education
I just thought it was ironic that they had to be saved from freezing to death while doing some Global Warming research .It reminded me of the Grizzly Man who was running around trying to convince everyone how nice grizzlies are , then they ended up eating him and his girl friend . Also " Sorry ' this was not meant to be a troll my name had been removed under PREFERENCES and i just corrected that Today . I just don't believe in G.W. and there is plenty of GOOD science to back me/us up . If it gives you good karma believing in all this great .
Chris - as long as the global population keeps expanding at it's current rate, it's not so much a matter of getting Brazil to stop clearing rainforest, or getting China to stop pursuing it's own industrial revolution. People consume, and the trend is that they consume more as they advance their economy. Even though we're not directly clearing rainforests, the consumptive practices of Americans (and other cultures) are the source of many of the activities that are changing the climate.
The question really is "why do we think that we can sustain an ongoing exponential population increase?" Every additional person becomes a consumer. Grow that population exponentially, and the demand for and consumption of resources exceeds the planet's ability to supply them in a manner that is balanced and sustainable.
It's a valid argument to say - as you suggested - that perhaps much of this is just a natural cycling that the earth goes through, with or without humans involved. But that argument still doesn't address the equally valid argument that no finite (or slowly renewable) resource can indefinitely sustain an exponentially expanding demand.
IMO, both arguments are valid. I believe the earth does go through natural cycles of heating/cooling, deforestation/reforestation. I also believe that humans have impacted that cycle to the point that it has become imbalanced. The question is how will the equation balance itself.
This thread explores what many believe is the root cause of global warming and related environmental maladies, and what natural "corrections" may result.
Yes, the earth’s climate is changing, but it is always changing. Yes, the earth’s climate is getting warmer, but it has been much warmer before in the very recent past and the polar bears are still with us. Most importantly though, attributing the current warming to man-made causes is both shortsighted and dangerous. It is dangerous because the costs, both in economic and human currency could be leading us down the path of insolvency and technical stagnation. It is perpetuating human suffering for those in underdeveloped nations that do not yet enjoy the benefits of first world technology and are still cooking their meals on an open fire. We tend to jump on these global band wagons for many different reasons, including casual, localized personal observations, i.e. pine beetles in Colorado, but are too lazy to really make an informed decision by taking a hard look at the science and at both sides of the “polemic”. We prefer instead to be led blindly by the nose by politicians and media outlets that each carry their own unrelated agendas in the “message”.
In relationship to our planet the human race is pretty insignificant. However, we tend to see the world through our limited and self-centered vision, as far as the eye can see so to speak, and ignore the three-dimensional vastness of this our world. I am sure that most of us don’t know that if we all stood side by side each in a square meter of “surface” area, the whole population of the world would fit in the Everglades, with room to spare. We ignore the fact that our planet is three dimensional. Space is measured not in square, but in cubic units. We can’t “see” this vastness, the volume of the oceans for example, so we dismiss its climatological power “blindly”. We ignore the thousands of megatons of carbon dioxide the oceans put forth and concentrate instead on our cars’ tailpipes, because they are right there in front of us, while also ignoring the insignificant amount of carbon dioxide they put forth in relationship to every other thing. We don’t even try to find out how this entire man-made global warming thing started, who started it and who is driving it, and why.
Might I humbly recommend you take some of your valuable time and explore both sides of the man-made global warming polemic. Yes, it is the most important issue of our time. And it deserves an hour of our time. The link below is to a one hour program that portends to show the other side of this issue. In my humble opinion it is required education. I recommend you download it instead of watching it online as it is an hour long. The download link is on the top right. And say hi to Margaret Thatcher for me :wink. You’ll know what I mean when you watch this…
It's always good to view 'the other side' - then do a little research on the folks on that side. Apparently you've not done that - this film came out a while ago and has been soundly rebuked, including by folks who were "interviewed" for it.
" “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge. (Or possibly, the individuals involved have never passed a high school science course and don’t understand that there is a difference.)
Martin Durkin’s modus operandi for the various versions of the video/movie appears to be:
1) I want to propagandize my anti-environment, anti-global warming agenda.
2) What kind of wild stories, manufactured “evidence”, etc. can I include this time to provide political fodder for the scientifically illiterate dimwits?"
www.sourcewatch.org says "The film's writer and director, Martin Durkin, believes that "global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists," reported The Age in June 2007. Durkin previously made the anti-environmental film "Against Nature," which Britain's Channel 4 had to issue a public apology for, "because it misled interviewees and distorted the editing of their contributions." Other films by Durkin praise genetically modified food and silicone breast implants. [1]
Oceanographer Carl Wunsch "complained he had been misled" with regard to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." He claimed that his interview "had been edited to look as though he was dismissing human-caused climate change." [2]
Split UK ruling
In July 2008, the British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers." [1]
Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ofcom also said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world.""
As soon a piece turns to Richard Lindzen as a "source" it becomes a cartoon. Patrick Moore just turns it into a sci-fi piece. I suggest you do some homework .. Scroll down to "Interviewees" and click on each of their names.
The film 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' couldn't be more aptly named.
Reply posted by Carl Donohue on 05/29/09 at 3:40 pm EST
As soon a piece turns to Richard Lindzen as a "source" it becomes a cartoon. Patrick Moore just turns it into a sci-fi piece. I suggest you do some homework .. Scroll down to "Interviewees" and click on each of their names.
Hi Carl,
Funny how this whole thing works doesn't it? It is now down to "Ad hominem" attacks, there's nothing left I suppose. I am a skeptic by profession (analyst), trained to study worst case scenarios and build from there - now retired. I look at this stuff seriously and read the science. A blurb from the latest IPCC report - Chapter 9 Executive Summary:
"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies."
"Very Likely" means >90%, yet in the next sentence they say we don't have a clue about how to measure the human effect! A 90% guess... then why even mention it. And so it goes with this thing. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that proves this "we're guilty" thing one way or the other, yet were ready to spend away our kids and their kids futures to "try" and fix this. I cannot in my professional conscience do that to my kids without solid evidence. And the evidence seems to be shifting recently....
I think one of the funniest things is calling this whole movement "Green", when C02 makes everything green grow faster and bigger!
And, who is Bill Butler again, and his credentials?
If you think Richard Lindzen's commentary on climate change, or, say, the effects of smoking cigarettes, is accurate, that's up to you. But the guy is a paid schill for Exxon, just as he has been for Phillips Morris for a long, long time. The import of that is, IMO, valid. If I posted a video that showed Bernie Madoff (what a perfect name for that guy, Made-off, eh?) espousing an investment scheme, would you trust it? Better yet, if you saw something with his name on it, would ya buy it? I wouldn't.
""Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has
very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of it"
and you think that's a valid comparison with the movie you just linked to, which says, for example:
"Everywhere, you are told that man-made climate change has been proven beyond doubt, but you are being told lies."
Now consider the truth in those 2 statements, and the language they use; 'everywhere you are being told' is an absurd statement to make when someone is assuming some kind of scientific authority, not only because it's blatantly not true, but because it's an impossibility. To go and follow that with 'you are being told lies' is theater at best, more circus-like than the very 'media-driven hoax' he's trying to defame. You just did the same thing, btw, with your claim of 'ad hominem'. What's amazing is that you are so particular about the commentary in the IPCC (as you should be), and yet so readily accepting of this kind of scripted nonsense in a movie.
By the way, you misrepresented the quote you gave - the IPCC report does not go on to say "we don't have a clue about how to measure the human effect", but, rather, says (my emphasis added) "It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies". These 2 sentences are not quite saying what you're implying. One says anthropogenic forces have very likely contributed to sea level rise (i.e., the likelihood of some contribution is > 90%); the 2nd says it is difficult to quantify by exactly how much. It's very likely the piece of pie I ate tonight has contributed to my belly, but it's hard to measure by exactly how much.
If anyone is interested, the IPCC Ch 9 Exec Summary mentioned above is here.
This film was soundly shot down when it was released. Here's a critical review of the film by the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, on the CSIRO's website; "The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia's national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world." Authors are Jones D, Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M. 2007, Australian National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology. "The Great Global Warming Swindle a critique". You can read the abstract here.
An excerpt from page one of the review: "Most of the expert commentators appearing in the documentary are well known ‘climate sceptics’. One of the key scientists interviewed for the original documentary, Professor Carl Wunsch, Chair of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented in the documentary. Indeed, much of the documentary’s shortening to 60 minutes for the ABC (about 15 minutes shorter than the original) is a result of heavy editing of
Professor Wunsch’s contribution to the original version. His removal leaves the documentary with four climate experts: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer and John Christy. To the best of our knowledge, none of these interviewees has published a credible alternative to the scientific consensus on global warming provided in the IPCC reports. They present intentionally or otherwise through selective editing, grossly simplified and often disingenuous and counter-factual arguments and quotes."
Wasn't one of the assertions they made in the film that changes in the sun were responsible for current climate changes? Science Daily had a piece about that issue not long ago that said that's not the case, here;
"The hypothesis they tested was that increased solar activity reduces cloudiness by changing cosmic rays. So, when clouds decrease, more sunlight is let in, causing the earth to warm. Some climate change skeptics have tried to use this hypothesis to suggest that greenhouse gases may not be the global warming culprits that most scientists agree they are.
In research published in Geophysical Research Letters, and highlighted in the May 1 edition of Science, Adams and Pierce report the first atmospheric simulations of changes in atmospheric ions and particle formation resulting from variations in the sun and cosmic rays. They find that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate.
"Until now, proponents of this hypothesis could assert that the sun may be causing global warming because no one had a computer model to really test the claims," said Adams, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon."
Funnily enough, I hadn't checked that site in a while, and they added this recent article last week, suggesting that climate change may actually be worse than previously predicted;
"The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that."
From what I recall, the original title of the film was going to be "Apocalypse My Arse" or something similar. Great stuff. It's been a while since I read anything on it, but I believe the data in the film all stops at 1980 doesn't it .. which must, if nothing else, at least raise your eyebrow, eh? Even the Royal Society, the UK's science academy, issued a press release bunking it, I think. I assume you can find most of this stuff with the googles. Wikipedia probably has a run on it, but sometimes that site is a little sketchy too - though I've generally found the science stuff there to be reasonably well-reviewed.
This is why I don't even bother scoping out the nonsense so many people post as 'the other side' at all - it's always theater, usually old, masquerading as some authentic newspiece. It's the John Stewart Daily Show, or the Onion, without the humor and without the honesty (at least they don't pretend to be credible sources of information). Provide something that's plausible, something that's valid, and I'll be the first one to give it a whirl; but it's always the same old cr** and it's always, always, coming from (i.e., funded from) the same sources.
A greater issue, perhaps, lies in your comment:
"I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that proves this "we're guilty" thing one way or the other, yet were ready to spend away our kids and their kids futures to "try" and fix this."
I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that suggests we're NOT already spending your kids' futures, and if we don't slow down, and put little back, their future ain't gunna be so healthy.
The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.
"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
and
Non-Human Influences on Climate Change
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.
"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."[/i]
Reply posted by Carl Donohue on 06/05/09 at 4:47 pm EST
Hey Folks,
Another report debunks the 'sun spot' idea:
Hi Carl,
There's a critical mistake in your logic. Saying that "it is not" Sun spots, does not prove that "therefore it is" Anthropogenic CO2. That is what is know in logic parlance as a formal "Non Sequitur" fallacy.
This is really simple, warming is either being caused by Anthropogenic CO2, or it is not. If it is not then all the money, research and "hot air" being spent on this debate is a gross misdirection of humanity's limited resources.
As I have said before, I am a skeptic by nature and profession. I need incontrovertible proof to make sound judgments. I hate to guess and avoid that like the plague. Incontrovertible proof comes from good science, the good qualifier because there is some bad science out there, just like with everything else. My personal goal is simple, separate the wheat from the chaff. As such I am forced to read and understand the science.
If you could take a "chill pill" for a moment, a deep breath, sit down and have a glass of wine this evening, and open your mind for a bit and read the science on CO2; see if it makes any sense to you....
CO2 IS the only issue here! Learn how it absorbs heat, at what wavelengths, how much of it is in the atmosphere, and how much heat it could possibly absorb. This are all very well understood scientific LAWS, and the stuff is out there. I know because I read it.
It's complicated but the bottom line is that CO2 increases just replace water vapor and our atmosphere is one of "equilibrium" not a "runaway".
Or a simpler read, albeit it took me two hours to get through it, by James A. Peden, yes he is a sound advocate against AGW. But, I found this place not looking for anti AGW stuff, I found it when searching for mass spectrometer data on CO2 research. And it just so happens that James was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer :
Relax, and make an effort to read the science, it is enlightening. I don't have an ax to grind either way except that now it seems that this whole thing is going to cost me and my children dearly so I better get with it on my research and make an "educated" opinion for myself.
Uhhmmm, that would be Robert Calahan's and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center logic. I just posted the comments here. You'd have to read the report to see what they based it on. If they made a Non Sequitur fallacy, maybe write them and point it out.
The only reason I posted that is because one of the fundamental principles in the movie you linked to earlier, from what I recall of it, was that the sun is the primary driver of climate change. Apparently that is not the case.
I'll check over your links a little later, thanks.
Oh, and you said "Incontrovertible proof comes from good science" - good science, IMO, would suggest that nothing is incontrovertible. But I'm not a scientist, nor good. :)
Jose, I went through several years of graduate school at UW and was "forced" to read all that science you refer to. I'm a huge skeptic, and was at one time when it came to AGW, but months of study convinced me otherwise. You cannot read a couple of articles and come to a sound conclusion, but you can rely on the overwhelming majority of those who have done the research, and despite what a few fringe folks say, there is a clear consensus. Could it turn out to be wrong? Of course it could, but that is irrelevant. Run through the differential equations that drive the models a few times and see if that alters your opinion any. I will check out your link and get back to you, but from my extensive look at the issue, I have come to the conclusion that the forcing effects of increased CO2 (along with other factors such as deforestation--which you neglected to mention in your more CO2=green statement) is understood and that observations back up the expected consequences.
Ok, Jose, ive just taken a cursory look at your "good science" paper by Miskolczi. The publication in the "Hungarian Journal" kind of set off my BS detector alert and the fact the paper apparently hasnt been cited by anyone. Just where do you dig this stuff up?? I really dont want to read his mathematical mess, but i will do so if you can swear to me that you actually understand his arguments and all the equations he uses. From what ive seen so far, it seems Miskolczi completely misunderstands Kirchoff's Law, which is something you learn about as an undergrad in Atmospheric Science, and then goes off on his "viral theorem" which is just very strange. I imagine the "conspiracy theorists" are busy on the internet arguing that this misguided man was rejected by all the major journals because he is being "surpressed", but really it seems apparent to me the reason is a little more simple than that
I'm not online much in the summer, so apologise for not getting back earlier. Stan covered the 'paper' you presented well enough. Regarding James Peden, he's far from credible at all. He's a web designer. Here's a little more info on him and his editorial. Not convincing at all.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by robert kempton on November 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM
“Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.”
* posting a headline, maybe a sentence or two and a link to the original article is acceptable. (fair use doctrine)
* posting more than a few paragraphs is not.”
I know what you linked to is nothing more than a blog, not an AP article, but copying the entire thing is infringement.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by robert kempton on December 25, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Man vs Nature on Global Warming , i feel Newt really nailed it !!
Posted by Stan Rose on December 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM
You still alive and kicking, Rob? I kinda miss your fine photography
Posted by Jose Suro on January 10, 2010 at 9:20 PM
Reply posted by Stan Rose on 06/13/09 at 12:40 am EST
Registered on 09/15/05, 211 Topics, 2416 Replies
You cannot read a couple of articles and come to a sound conclusion, but you can rely on the overwhelming majority of those who have done the research, and despite what a few fringe folks say, there is a clear consensus. Could it turn out to be wrong? Of course it could, but that is irrelevant.
Hi Stan,
I haven't been through here in months but I see that this thread is still up. Let me give you a bit of perspective.
Assuming I've only read a couple of articles well, that's your assumption. I'll let you figure the value of that sentence by yourself.
Science by consensus? Now there's a novel idea! Let's use consensus in science, yes, and run our lives with that. You know better than that (I hope)....
Irrelevant? Hardly. Peoples lives are at stake. And mind you, not yours and mine in our comfy first world environments.
And don't get me started on computer models. 100 year models? You ought to know better, you're a meteorologist! I was programming computers in assembler code when you might have been a little boy. That is my field, and I've kept up with it. All the way from putting cards into a reader on an IBM 360 30-years ago until to today. Let me ask you a simple one, what goes into these models? But you know the answer to that too, don't you?
Every new generation seems to make the same mistake of not learning from the wisdom that came before them. It's sad. I would never assume you would understand this, but you might later on in your life, hopefully.
And of course, I hold no animosity for insulting me on my research :).
Best,
Jose
Posted by robert kempton on February 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM
I hope everyone is enjoying all the global warming going on back east !! LOL
Science is always a matter of consensus, whether you like it or not. Of course, the consensus is based on testable hypotheses and peer reviewed research. When ideas are disproven, science is flexible enough to change. Science is never dictated by the loudest mouths, just the most open and demanding ones. That's why whether it is possibly wrong is irrelevant. Whether lives are at stake or not is not the issue--the issue is what the current science is and what actions should be taken given those findings.
It is quite simple really: if there is a consensus that dire consequences are imminent unless we take immediate and drastic action, what should the correct response be?? Should one act, or should one sit and wait until it is to late, because the consensus might be wrong? What do you think??
I don't follow your remarks about computing. Climate models aren't infallible, but when a large number of them using different inputs and different modeling all come to the same conclusion, I sit up and take notice. One thing that is commonly misunderstood by many, including many with scientific backgrounds, is that there is a world of difference between forecasting changes in climate and forecasting the weather. Forecasting specific weather events is basically impossible beyond a couple of weeks (despite some claims by some who rely on unscientific methods). Forecasting climate change is a different story. Yes, feedback mechanisms can be complicated, and it can even be argued that climate is chaotic, but radiative forcing is well understood, and as ive already said, the effects of increased greenhouse gases are also.
There are at least some indications that "global warming" has slowed down in the past decade, although that could be largely due to recent atmospheric curculation patterns (that would have made us a lot colder if it werent for AGW). The affects of GW are most noticeable in the arctic, and the changes there are downright scary--ask the folks who live up there! I hope I and the vast majority of climate scientists are all wrong about AGW, but Im not going to ignore the facts based on wishful thinking. Show me some unbiased research that can be understood, and I'lll take note.
Every new generation seems to make the same mistake of not learning from the wisdom that came before them. It's sad. I would never assume you would understand this, but you might later on in your life, hopefully.
Lol, that is very true. We assumed the forests would last forever, until we cut them all down. We assumed the Bison and Grizzles and wolves were endless, until we shot them all. We assumed the fish were uncountable until we caught them all. And dont even get me started on politics---the countless times we have engaged ourselves in foreign lands under some mistaken ideology, oblivious to our past interference and support of evil regimes, and oblivious to the needs and beliefs of the local populations. Lest i forget, we have plenty of precedence for the long--term affect of unabashed consumerism and the celebration of wanton materialistic pleasures, yet we as a society seem to delight in that. Wipe out the wisdom of the past, because only the "Now" is relevant--that's the message of the New Age movement--you know, Jose, the movement that delights in bashing Conservatism. Gimme a break, if there's one thing i can do well it is divorcing myself from the influence of political crapola, and i suggest you keep an open mind and do the same.
Posted by Carl Donohue on April 7, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Robert Kempton wrote:
"I hope everyone is enjoying all the global warming going on back east !! LOL
hey Rob,
Where are ya, man? You seem quiet lately?
.. "according to the National Climatic Data Center, in the seven-day period from March 29 through April 4, over 1100 daily record highs were either tied or broken in the nation!"
It's so hot I saw a dog chasing a cat and they were both walkin'.
Discussion
49 replieshttp://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/03/global_warming_92.html
"Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles" (Proverbs 24:17)
Might be worth reading the bible before invoking the name of God...
Guy
I'm curious to understand the difference between believing in god (per the statement in your signature), and believing in global warming. If the absence of definitive proof (in your mind) makes something a scam - and assuming that you believe god is not a scam - what is your definitive proof for his existence?
Lack of evidence does not equal lack of validity. Science is discovery; it's truth in progress.
Given the compelling scientific and circumstantial evidence - and the potential severity of the consequences - waiting for incontrovertible proof is risky business.
SECONDLY...so a bunch of climate scientists hit a cold snap, and you insinuate that the whole global warming thing is off. You are seriously using this as part of your argument? Or are you trying to mock all of our intelligences. Even the naysayers who pick and choose facts on both sides of the 'debate' have better pointed ideas than this...
Please stop posting pointless weather breifings as an attempt to incite a 50 response idealog on anthropogenic climate change.
Im tired of the "i was around in the 70s when there was hoopla about a coming ice age, blah blah" arguments too, I was around in the 70s and i recall the stories too, but comparing the magnitude of the two scenarios is ridiculous; the science and observations that support the current warming are just overwhelming compared to a few stories that hyped cooling in the 70s. There's no comparison, its orders of magnitude greater (the evidence of AGW).
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx
In journalism school, reporters are always taught that they have to be impartial. The easiest way to do this is to find a person with an opposing viewpoint and give them equal time or voice. The problem is that this can lead to the presumption of a lack of concensus or an apparant debate, while it is just a few, loud people are getting equal air time...therefore, the fact that lou dobbs had a guest on who pulled select facts that even could be misleading doesn't sway the scientific concensus, nor does the fact that you have snow in your yard (weather does not equal cljmate).
How can facts be misleading? People love to point out that the ice on antarctica is getting thicker, so that must mean that the whole thing is off. But critically examining the issue shows that it has never been above 7F at the south pole. Also, as air gets warmer, it holds more moisture. So warming, but still below freezing air would make the pole thicker, even though it sounds like it would prove the contrary...
Lastly, when you see that a viewpoint is being pushed by a large group like the heartland institute, it's good to follow the money. This group is funded by many major players in energy, and it's mission is not environmental. Their tagline on google says it is...
"Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets."
How do you arrive at the conclusion that "there is too little data..."? We have a large amount of historical information, from ice core samples, trees etc. I really think you severely underestimate our capacity to alter our environment. Are you in denial over CFC's role in ozone depletion?? Are you in denial over the fact that weve rendered large areas of the ocean a wasteland, and historically driven many animal and plant species into extinction?? Are you in denial that we have cut down ~95% of the ancient forest?? Are you in denial that we are on our way to laying the rainforest to waste?? Are you in denial that human pollution can affect climate/weather?? How about contrails--no affect on albedo?? Can we just fill the atmosphere with smog and hope that the big ol' atmoshpere will just take care of itself, no need to worry about the air we breathe? If we can dam up virtually every wild river, turn canyons into vast lakes, forests into Plains, swamps into deserts, why is it so hard for you to accept that we can alter our climate as welll?? If i'm sounding like one of those 'overzelous' environmentalists you are so afraid of, i guess i accept responsibility, because it's my future as well as yours that is at stake, and I will fight for it.
I'm a meteorologist with an MS in atmospheric science, and i was extremely skeptical about AGW at first, i became convinced through much study of original research, through my own knowlege and experience in modeling and climate forcing, and through common sense. When there is scientific consensus (and there is, despite the vocal minority) you are being foolish to proclaim that "people are going to believe what they want to believe".
You make some very convincing arguments, and maybe I will reconsider my view point. Maybe the larger question should be how do we maintain our quality of life, the economy and advance technology, yet still live in harmony with nature. I do get very upset when the life of a human is placed below that of sacrificing a few acres of land. For example, a couple years ago a man froze to death in his car along I-87 in NY, because cell towers were fought by a group saying they would distract from the landscape, preventing him from calling for help. Wind power is fought because manufacturing the cement used to fabricate the base would pollute the air, roads would have to be constructed to the sites of the towers. We are not talking a multi lane highway here, just an access road. Just read a book on hiking in the Adirondacks, one good line stated the black bears are no dummies, give them a road, they will gladly walk it instead of bush wacking. Both sides have to come together and have intelligent dialogue, and work out a good middle ground, not flat out reject the others adgenda. But, without viable alternatives in place, we cannot scrap what we are now doing, and continue to grow as a society. No one source of energy will provide all our needs, we need to develop solar, wind, hydro (including tidal flow), nuclear, NG and hydrogen. But currently the not in my back yard mentality, old regulations, fear of the new, and political correctness are hampering all efforts. Hence we are stuck in limbo.
Hey Steve,
I think, in order to best deal with this kind of troll, a different type of lube is required. No Whataye meen? :)
Cheers
Carl
Richard Leakey's "Sixth Age of Extinction", which we now live in, attributes the massive current rate of extinction to humanities influence on our environment, which has greatly accelerated in the past few hundred years. Surely you can see that by eliminating half of the rainforests, where the majority of living species exist, that species are in jeapordy. I've seen estimates anywhere from 100 to 10,000 times the rate as the "natural" background rate of extinction thanks to mankind's influence. There are numerous papers on the subject, if you're interested i suggest you research the subject. A widely publicized study in "Nature" (Nature 454, 100-103, July 3, 2008) argued that exctinction is being seriously underestimated, even by groups such as the International Union of Conservation of Nature, which regularly puts out numbers on the extinction rate.
It's funny (sad) that species extinction is a very serious thing, but because it isnt as politically charged as "Global Warming" you dont hear much about it in the press. On the other hand, you dont have a lot of websites attacking or denying this either, as you do with GW!
Another important issue with this is 'extinction debt' .. the idea that extinctions continue long after (some say 10 years) beyond the time we think we might have stopped an activity that causes extinctions (logging, etc). Google's your friend on the subject.
Cheers
Carl
When the Colorado River compact was made our scientists had studied the weather cycles and were confident that the study period was adequate. We later found out the cycle was far longer than was realised at the time and the period that had been studied was actually just the peak years. In those dim nearly forgotten years of the far past when I was in college we were given "a new truth" nearly every year that contradicted one of last year's "truths."
Do you suspect that we don't yet know all of creations secrets and many of the things we now know for fact will turn out to be incorrect? Not to many years ago man "knew" the world was both flat AND the center of universe. Both beliefs were based on observation and less than complete information. Might our information be less than complete or our analysis be less than accurate?
We've recently heard that our scientists "lost" a piece of ice the size of California and that maybe the polar ice caps aren't really smaller after all (they had failed to calibrate their instruments) and an audit of where NOAA was collecting temperature data found many collection points were not according to standards including one in the middle of a black top parking lot and one by an industrial buildings AC exhaust.
Mankind's history is one of advancement and learning, but we also should recognize that we probably don't "know" as much as we think we do.
The evidence suggests that the rate of change currently is exceptional, perhaps unprecedented. We know the quantity of CO2 is increasing. We know a good portion of that is our doing. We know that even a slight increase of a minor gas can have a big effect on the forcing. It's been tested countless times in theory, and the theory is matching the observations. Your "bold" to me is just plain common sense.
Just my 2 cents,
Chris
I totally feel your pain with regards to the forests in your state. It is heartbreaking to hear about, and see documented in some of your images. Colorado is a magnificent state. My question is, would this be still happening if we were not here to witness it. This might very well be part of the natural processes that the earth goes through. It just sucks that we are here to witness destruction to some of the places that are near to our hearts. In an emotional respones to this, we might over react. This over reaction surely would include having to have something to blame it on. Mankind is a good whipping boy for those out there with a cause. It makes me sad to see places become less than they were. But I also think we should be reasonable when we put the blame on ourselves for things. That usually results in knee jerk responses, and so called solutions that really don't do anything but make people "feel good about themselves". No bad intentions here, just trying to point out an alternative way of thinking about it. It still sucks.
Chris
As for your question on the beetle epedemic, there's no way to know for sure whether "it would still be happening..." For sure, it is part of a natural cycle and has occured to certain extent in the past. The fact that recent winters have been considerably warmer than in the past has almost certainly had a negative impact on the epedemic (since a really cold spell would kill the beetle larvae). Our forests are also weaker due to poor historical forestry practices (fire suppression, clear-cutting etc) and long-term drought (also partly a function of climate change). How much a role man has had in this really is not an issue, the fact that we probably have had any negative impact should concern anyone who cares about our environment. And as i pointed out, this impact is only one small example of many.
I dont completely understand your confusion/question about CO2. No one to my knowlege is arguing that CO2 in ice is a major contribution to CO2 increase. Melting ice results in water, which is a possible sink for CO2. The increase in CO2 thanks to human activity over the past couple hundred years can be directly related to the increase in atmospheric CO2. There are some 'junk science' (to use RK's term) folks out there arguing to the contrary, but they really are fringe lunatics. Incidentally, automobile use is only a small percentage of the increase, a greater percentage is the burning of fossil fuels in power plants. Land usage (burning down the rainforests) also increases CO2, since the sink (trees) are no longer there.
Thanks for noticing my post, and responding. I didn't realize this thread was a couple of weeks old. Scientifically, I'm just a guy that gets most of my info from the radio, on the way to work. And from the news of course. It is my observation, that everyone on both sides of the issue from a political standpoint has an agenda. I think that's sad. One side shows polar bears supposedly stranded on an iceberg. The other side calls global warming a hoax. Somewhere in between we have an issue that needs to be responded to. I think we have recognized, and have made huge leaps of progress there. I just hate the political argument, and posturing involved whenever there is a "crisis". It would be great if more of us could bring awareness, and a sense of responsibility to the masses through our images. I sure didn't want to sound indifferent, or insensative to the issue. So how do we get Brazil to stop clearing the rainforest? Or stop China from continuing to pursue it's own industrial revolution. I have a friend that went there last year to tour some of the mines. He is a mineral collector/dealer. He said that basically, he didn't see the sun for ten days due to the polution in the air. I find that troublesome. After seeing Mike Andersons' images from the Li River, I wanted to be able to go there myself. Maybe that impressive red sky is partly due to the particulate matter in the air. I'd love to continue this discussion, as I could use the education
Chris
RobK
The question really is "why do we think that we can sustain an ongoing exponential population increase?" Every additional person becomes a consumer. Grow that population exponentially, and the demand for and consumption of resources exceeds the planet's ability to supply them in a manner that is balanced and sustainable.
It's a valid argument to say - as you suggested - that perhaps much of this is just a natural cycling that the earth goes through, with or without humans involved. But that argument still doesn't address the equally valid argument that no finite (or slowly renewable) resource can indefinitely sustain an exponentially expanding demand.
IMO, both arguments are valid. I believe the earth does go through natural cycles of heating/cooling, deforestation/reforestation. I also believe that humans have impacted that cycle to the point that it has become imbalanced. The question is how will the equation balance itself.
This thread explores what many believe is the root cause of global warming and related environmental maladies, and what natural "corrections" may result.
In relationship to our planet the human race is pretty insignificant. However, we tend to see the world through our limited and self-centered vision, as far as the eye can see so to speak, and ignore the three-dimensional vastness of this our world. I am sure that most of us don’t know that if we all stood side by side each in a square meter of “surface” area, the whole population of the world would fit in the Everglades, with room to spare. We ignore the fact that our planet is three dimensional. Space is measured not in square, but in cubic units. We can’t “see” this vastness, the volume of the oceans for example, so we dismiss its climatological power “blindly”. We ignore the thousands of megatons of carbon dioxide the oceans put forth and concentrate instead on our cars’ tailpipes, because they are right there in front of us, while also ignoring the insignificant amount of carbon dioxide they put forth in relationship to every other thing. We don’t even try to find out how this entire man-made global warming thing started, who started it and who is driving it, and why.
Might I humbly recommend you take some of your valuable time and explore both sides of the man-made global warming polemic. Yes, it is the most important issue of our time. And it deserves an hour of our time. The link below is to a one hour program that portends to show the other side of this issue. In my humble opinion it is required education. I recommend you download it instead of watching it online as it is an hour long. The download link is on the top right. And say hi to Margaret Thatcher for me :wink. You’ll know what I mean when you watch this…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870
Best,
Jose
It's always good to view 'the other side' - then do a little research on the folks on that side. Apparently you've not done that - this film came out a while ago and has been soundly rebuked, including by folks who were "interviewed" for it.
One lengthy piece. by Bill Butler says:
" “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge. (Or possibly, the individuals involved have never passed a high school science course and don’t understand that there is a difference.)
Martin Durkin’s modus operandi for the various versions of the video/movie appears to be:
1) I want to propagandize my anti-environment, anti-global warming agenda.
2) What kind of wild stories, manufactured “evidence”, etc. can I include this time to provide political fodder for the scientifically illiterate dimwits?"
www.sourcewatch.org says
"The film's writer and director, Martin Durkin, believes that "global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists," reported The Age in June 2007. Durkin previously made the anti-environmental film "Against Nature," which Britain's Channel 4 had to issue a public apology for, "because it misled interviewees and distorted the editing of their contributions." Other films by Durkin praise genetically modified food and silicone breast implants. [1]
Oceanographer Carl Wunsch "complained he had been misled" with regard to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." He claimed that his interview "had been edited to look as though he was dismissing human-caused climate change." [2]
Split UK ruling
In July 2008, the British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers." [1]
Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ofcom also said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world.""
As soon a piece turns to Richard Lindzen as a "source" it becomes a cartoon. Patrick Moore just turns it into a sci-fi piece. I suggest you do some homework .. Scroll down to "Interviewees" and click on each of their names.
The film 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' couldn't be more aptly named.
Cheers
Carl
Hi Carl,
Funny how this whole thing works doesn't it? It is now down to "Ad hominem" attacks, there's nothing left I suppose. I am a skeptic by profession (analyst), trained to study worst case scenarios and build from there - now retired. I look at this stuff seriously and read the science. A blurb from the latest IPCC report - Chapter 9 Executive Summary:
"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has
very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies."
"Very Likely" means >90%, yet in the next sentence they say we don't have a clue about how to measure the human effect! A 90% guess... then why even mention it. And so it goes with this thing. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that proves this "we're guilty" thing one way or the other, yet were ready to spend away our kids and their kids futures to "try" and fix this. I cannot in my professional conscience do that to my kids without solid evidence. And the evidence seems to be shifting recently....
I think one of the funniest things is calling this whole movement "Green", when C02 makes everything green grow faster and bigger!
And, who is Bill Butler again, and his credentials?
All the Best,
Jose
There was no "ad hominem" anything in my post.
If you think Richard Lindzen's commentary on climate change, or, say, the effects of smoking cigarettes, is accurate, that's up to you. But the guy is a paid schill for Exxon, just as he has been for Phillips Morris for a long, long time. The import of that is, IMO, valid. If I posted a video that showed Bernie Madoff (what a perfect name for that guy, Made-off, eh?) espousing an investment scheme, would you trust it? Better yet, if you saw something with his name on it, would ya buy it? I wouldn't.
Let's look at what you just compared though:
The IPCC report saying:
""Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has
very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of it"
and you think that's a valid comparison with the movie you just linked to, which says, for example:
"Everywhere, you are told that man-made climate change has been proven beyond doubt, but you are being told lies."
Now consider the truth in those 2 statements, and the language they use; 'everywhere you are being told' is an absurd statement to make when someone is assuming some kind of scientific authority, not only because it's blatantly not true, but because it's an impossibility. To go and follow that with 'you are being told lies' is theater at best, more circus-like than the very 'media-driven hoax' he's trying to defame. You just did the same thing, btw, with your claim of 'ad hominem'. What's amazing is that you are so particular about the commentary in the IPCC (as you should be), and yet so readily accepting of this kind of scripted nonsense in a movie.
By the way, you misrepresented the quote you gave - the IPCC report does not go on to say "we don't have a clue about how to measure the human effect", but, rather, says (my emphasis added) "It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies". These 2 sentences are not quite saying what you're implying. One says anthropogenic forces have very likely contributed to sea level rise (i.e., the likelihood of some contribution is > 90%); the 2nd says it is difficult to quantify by exactly how much. It's very likely the piece of pie I ate tonight has contributed to my belly, but it's hard to measure by exactly how much.
If anyone is interested, the IPCC Ch 9 Exec Summary mentioned above is here.
This film was soundly shot down when it was released. Here's a critical review of the film by the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, on the CSIRO's website; "The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia's national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world." Authors are Jones D, Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M. 2007, Australian National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology. "The Great Global Warming Swindle a critique". You can read the abstract here.
An excerpt from page one of the review:
"Most of the expert commentators appearing in the documentary are well known ‘climate sceptics’. One of the key scientists interviewed for the original documentary, Professor Carl Wunsch, Chair of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has publicly stated that he was completely misrepresented in the documentary. Indeed, much of the documentary’s shortening to 60 minutes for the ABC (about 15 minutes shorter than the original) is a result of heavy editing of
Professor Wunsch’s contribution to the original version. His removal leaves the documentary with four climate experts: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer and John Christy. To the best of our knowledge, none of these interviewees has published a credible alternative to the scientific consensus on global warming provided in the IPCC reports. They present intentionally or otherwise through selective editing, grossly simplified and often disingenuous and counter-factual arguments and quotes."
CSIRO have an entire review linked above that you can download for free, check it out. It's also available on The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS) website. Read the commentary on another AMOS' page on this subject here.
Real Climate had an entire wikipage on it too, but this page is better, IMO.
Wasn't one of the assertions they made in the film that changes in the sun were responsible for current climate changes? Science Daily had a piece about that issue not long ago that said that's not the case, here;
"The hypothesis they tested was that increased solar activity reduces cloudiness by changing cosmic rays. So, when clouds decrease, more sunlight is let in, causing the earth to warm. Some climate change skeptics have tried to use this hypothesis to suggest that greenhouse gases may not be the global warming culprits that most scientists agree they are.
In research published in Geophysical Research Letters, and highlighted in the May 1 edition of Science, Adams and Pierce report the first atmospheric simulations of changes in atmospheric ions and particle formation resulting from variations in the sun and cosmic rays. They find that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate.
"Until now, proponents of this hypothesis could assert that the sun may be causing global warming because no one had a computer model to really test the claims," said Adams, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon."
Funnily enough, I hadn't checked that site in a while, and they added this recent article last week, suggesting that climate change may actually be worse than previously predicted;
"The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that."
From what I recall, the original title of the film was going to be "Apocalypse My Arse" or something similar. Great stuff. It's been a while since I read anything on it, but I believe the data in the film all stops at 1980 doesn't it .. which must, if nothing else, at least raise your eyebrow, eh? Even the Royal Society, the UK's science academy, issued a press release bunking it, I think. I assume you can find most of this stuff with the googles. Wikipedia probably has a run on it, but sometimes that site is a little sketchy too - though I've generally found the science stuff there to be reasonably well-reviewed.
This is why I don't even bother scoping out the nonsense so many people post as 'the other side' at all - it's always theater, usually old, masquerading as some authentic newspiece. It's the John Stewart Daily Show, or the Onion, without the humor and without the honesty (at least they don't pretend to be credible sources of information). Provide something that's plausible, something that's valid, and I'll be the first one to give it a whirl; but it's always the same old cr** and it's always, always, coming from (i.e., funded from) the same sources.
A greater issue, perhaps, lies in your comment:
"I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that proves this "we're guilty" thing one way or the other, yet were ready to spend away our kids and their kids futures to "try" and fix this."
I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that suggests we're NOT already spending your kids' futures, and if we don't slow down, and put little back, their future ain't gunna be so healthy.
Cheers
Carl
Another report debunks the 'sun spot' idea:
The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.
"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
and
Non-Human Influences on Climate Change
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.
"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."[/i]
Cheers
Carl
Hey Folks,
Another report debunks the 'sun spot' idea:
Hi Carl,
There's a critical mistake in your logic. Saying that "it is not" Sun spots, does not prove that "therefore it is" Anthropogenic CO2. That is what is know in logic parlance as a formal "Non Sequitur" fallacy.
This is really simple, warming is either being caused by Anthropogenic CO2, or it is not. If it is not then all the money, research and "hot air" being spent on this debate is a gross misdirection of humanity's limited resources.
As I have said before, I am a skeptic by nature and profession. I need incontrovertible proof to make sound judgments. I hate to guess and avoid that like the plague. Incontrovertible proof comes from good science, the good qualifier because there is some bad science out there, just like with everything else. My personal goal is simple, separate the wheat from the chaff. As such I am forced to read and understand the science.
If you could take a "chill pill" for a moment, a deep breath, sit down and have a glass of wine this evening, and open your mind for a bit and read the science on CO2; see if it makes any sense to you....
CO2 IS the only issue here! Learn how it absorbs heat, at what wavelengths, how much of it is in the atmosphere, and how much heat it could possibly absorb. This are all very well understood scientific LAWS, and the stuff is out there. I know because I read it.
Here's a good science paper:
Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres
It's complicated but the bottom line is that CO2 increases just replace water vapor and our atmosphere is one of "equilibrium" not a "runaway".
Or a simpler read, albeit it took me two hours to get through it, by James A. Peden, yes he is a sound advocate against AGW. But, I found this place not looking for anti AGW stuff, I found it when searching for mass spectrometer data on CO2 research. And it just so happens that James was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer :
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Relax, and make an effort to read the science, it is enlightening. I don't have an ax to grind either way except that now it seems that this whole thing is going to cost me and my children dearly so I better get with it on my research and make an "educated" opinion for myself.
Best,
Jose
"my logic"??
Uhhmmm, that would be Robert Calahan's and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center logic. I just posted the comments here. You'd have to read the report to see what they based it on. If they made a Non Sequitur fallacy, maybe write them and point it out.
The only reason I posted that is because one of the fundamental principles in the movie you linked to earlier, from what I recall of it, was that the sun is the primary driver of climate change. Apparently that is not the case.
I'll check over your links a little later, thanks.
Oh, and you said "Incontrovertible proof comes from good science" - good science, IMO, would suggest that nothing is incontrovertible. But I'm not a scientist, nor good. :)
Cheers
Carl
I'm not online much in the summer, so apologise for not getting back earlier. Stan covered the 'paper' you presented well enough. Regarding James Peden, he's far from credible at all. He's a web designer. Here's a little more info on him and his editorial. Not convincing at all.
Cheers
Carl
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski
2 quick things you might want to pay attention to. Or not:
1) Read this article:
“Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.”
2) Read this article:
* posting a headline, maybe a sentence or two and a link to the original article is acceptable. (fair use doctrine)
* posting more than a few paragraphs is not.”
I know what you linked to is nothing more than a blog, not an AP article, but copying the entire thing is infringement.
Cheers
Carl
Man vs Nature on Global Warming , i feel Newt really nailed it !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9mTRDhWTJM&feature=related
Registered on 09/15/05, 211 Topics, 2416 Replies
You cannot read a couple of articles and come to a sound conclusion, but you can rely on the overwhelming majority of those who have done the research, and despite what a few fringe folks say, there is a clear consensus. Could it turn out to be wrong? Of course it could, but that is irrelevant.
Hi Stan,
I haven't been through here in months but I see that this thread is still up. Let me give you a bit of perspective.
Assuming I've only read a couple of articles well, that's your assumption. I'll let you figure the value of that sentence by yourself.
Science by consensus? Now there's a novel idea! Let's use consensus in science, yes, and run our lives with that. You know better than that (I hope)....
Irrelevant? Hardly. Peoples lives are at stake. And mind you, not yours and mine in our comfy first world environments.
And don't get me started on computer models. 100 year models? You ought to know better, you're a meteorologist! I was programming computers in assembler code when you might have been a little boy. That is my field, and I've kept up with it. All the way from putting cards into a reader on an IBM 360 30-years ago until to today. Let me ask you a simple one, what goes into these models? But you know the answer to that too, don't you?
Every new generation seems to make the same mistake of not learning from the wisdom that came before them. It's sad. I would never assume you would understand this, but you might later on in your life, hopefully.
And of course, I hold no animosity for insulting me on my research :).
Best,
Jose
''More Americans say global warming exaggerated ''
really glad to see more people are waking up to all this !!!
Science is always a matter of consensus, whether you like it or not. Of course, the consensus is based on testable hypotheses and peer reviewed research. When ideas are disproven, science is flexible enough to change. Science is never dictated by the loudest mouths, just the most open and demanding ones. That's why whether it is possibly wrong is irrelevant. Whether lives are at stake or not is not the issue--the issue is what the current science is and what actions should be taken given those findings.
It is quite simple really: if there is a consensus that dire consequences are imminent unless we take immediate and drastic action, what should the correct response be?? Should one act, or should one sit and wait until it is to late, because the consensus might be wrong? What do you think??
I don't follow your remarks about computing. Climate models aren't infallible, but when a large number of them using different inputs and different modeling all come to the same conclusion, I sit up and take notice. One thing that is commonly misunderstood by many, including many with scientific backgrounds, is that there is a world of difference between forecasting changes in climate and forecasting the weather. Forecasting specific weather events is basically impossible beyond a couple of weeks (despite some claims by some who rely on unscientific methods). Forecasting climate change is a different story. Yes, feedback mechanisms can be complicated, and it can even be argued that climate is chaotic, but radiative forcing is well understood, and as ive already said, the effects of increased greenhouse gases are also.
There are at least some indications that "global warming" has slowed down in the past decade, although that could be largely due to recent atmospheric curculation patterns (that would have made us a lot colder if it werent for AGW). The affects of GW are most noticeable in the arctic, and the changes there are downright scary--ask the folks who live up there! I hope I and the vast majority of climate scientists are all wrong about AGW, but Im not going to ignore the facts based on wishful thinking. Show me some unbiased research that can be understood, and I'lll take note.
Every new generation seems to make the same mistake of not learning from the wisdom that came before them. It's sad. I would never assume you would understand this, but you might later on in your life, hopefully.
Lol, that is very true. We assumed the forests would last forever, until we cut them all down. We assumed the Bison and Grizzles and wolves were endless, until we shot them all. We assumed the fish were uncountable until we caught them all. And dont even get me started on politics---the countless times we have engaged ourselves in foreign lands under some mistaken ideology, oblivious to our past interference and support of evil regimes, and oblivious to the needs and beliefs of the local populations. Lest i forget, we have plenty of precedence for the long--term affect of unabashed consumerism and the celebration of wanton materialistic pleasures, yet we as a society seem to delight in that. Wipe out the wisdom of the past, because only the "Now" is relevant--that's the message of the New Age movement--you know, Jose, the movement that delights in bashing Conservatism. Gimme a break, if there's one thing i can do well it is divorcing myself from the influence of political crapola, and i suggest you keep an open mind and do the same.
hey Rob,
Where are ya, man? You seem quiet lately?
.. "according to the National Climatic Data Center, in the seven-day period from March 29 through April 4, over 1100 daily record highs were either tied or broken in the nation!"
It's so hot I saw a dog chasing a cat and they were both walkin'.
Cheers
Carl