Global warming?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

However, the climatological theorizing record -- it's not exactly good. Climatology isn't a predictive science. They keep hoping they've gotten there, but then the atmosphere goes and does something different. The grounds for skepticism are at least as good as the grounds for credulity.

Meanwhile, the AGW platform continues to be contaminated with anti-capitalist, anti-American, and anti-wealth toxins, with precisely zero effort made to detox its thinking. Grounds for suspicion, except perhaps among those who think Counterpunch.org is the way, the truth, and the light.

[Lamplighter]

For the climate-warming addicts, here is an article saying data review
by the "Berkeley Project" is pushing skeptics into the fringes.
arsTechnica
By John Timmer
Oct 24, 2011
Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not sure that people who still don't believe it's warming at all will accept anything. Most of the skeptics have moved on to "it's not humans", "China's still polluting so we should too", "warmer will be better" or "it's too late anyway".

[piercehawkeye45]

Good. Prediction is the tough part though. That will take much longer to master and there will never be complete agreement there.

[Lamplighter]

HM and PH45, you hit it on the head...
This article seems to be coming from an industry-related source,
at least as I read their answers to their 5 questions.

OilPrice.com
Written by MasterResource **
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 12:29
Global Warming Debate Finally Over? Five Questions For Richard Muller

Here are the five key questions that Muller and any critic of so-called climate skepticism must confront:
Q1: How has the global average temperature changed in recent history?
Q2: How much of that change is attributable to human activities, and how much to a given activity?
Q3: What can we expect to happen to the climate in the future?
Q4: How will those predicted changes affect people in the future?
Q5: What should we do today in response to Q1–Q4?

To prove my own bias, I could add Q6:
What are the consequences of doing nothing,
if Q2 is answered in the affirmative with respect to CO2 release due to human activities ?

[HungLikeJesus]

Please to explain what you mean by doing nothing?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Please to explain what you mean by doing nothing?

In fewest words, "doing nothing" means we ignore current actions of man-associated activities.

The global corporations are already going down the road moving over to (liquified) natural gas (methane).
This morning on Google News, I clicked the button for "liquified natural gas",
and there are numerous articles about GE purchasing LNG terminals,
ferries being converted, Quebec creating LNG stations along the transCanada highway, etc., etc.

My bias is along the lines that (since) global warming is an accepted "fact",
that CO2 and methane are the major culprits.

When the powers-that-be make policy decisions (as above) and ignore the effects,
what happens later if/when it is, in fact, determined that such
man-associated activities are aggravating this warming ?

What will those same powers be able to do to reverse their actions ?

Sort of like fracking, once ground water sources are contaminated,
what can/will the industry be able to do to fix the problem they have created ?

Here is a local example for our power company (PGE)

OregonLive.com
Natural-gas-fired plant proposed for Troutdale's former Reynolds Aluminum plant,
just a mile from Columbia River Gorge

An energy developer based in New York wants to build two natural-gas-fired power plants --
with the option for a third -- on the site of the old Reynolds Aluminum plant in Troutdale. [Oregon]

The irony here is that the aluminum plants were built there
to use hydroelectric power generated at the CR dams.

"Regulators" have already agreed with the proposal and instructed PGE to solicit developers.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

To prove my own bias, I could add Q6:
What are the consequences of doing nothing,
if Q2 is answered in the affirmative with respect to CO2 release due to human activities ?

What annoys me about the climate change debate is that there is some inherent assumption that we should not work to adapt to any changes in our global climate. Looking throughout history, natural climate change has usually gone side by side with some of the biggest falls of civilization and important times of innovation so whether climate change is man-made or not, why are we not looking at way to adapt to our new potential world? I understand there is no way to predict what is going to happen, but our military has a response plan for most imaginable situations so why can't there be discussion of response plans from multiple scenarios of climate change, ranging from nothing changing to apocalyptic changes of our climate.

In my opinion, there should be two seperate debates about climate change: one political and one apolitical. The political debate should discuss human influence in climate change, pollution, energy security, etc, and how that should affect our investments and regulations taking both economics and environment into consideration.

The second apolitical debate should focus solely on a human response to climate change. This debate should take into account multiple possible climate change outcomes and their effects on society. For example, if regions in Africa starts to become drier and hotter, hurting agriculture in that region, what should we do in response and how can we plan for it. If the same regions in Africa start to become colder and wetter, making the current crops useless, what new crops could be planted and what can be done to ease the transition?

I feel there is no much discussion about adaptation since most of the energy with climate change is directed towards human influence and stopping climate change. So these people will not want to discuss adaptation because they would rather avoid the entire situation by stopping climate change. By creating a second debate where we get rid of the economic and environmental politics and take a pragmatic approach, real ideas could appear to our possible responses to possible climate change.

[Lamplighter]

I see, and essentially do agree with, your point about a second kind of discussion.

My career and life experiences tell me that while technical
people can, and do, engage one another in such discussions,
it's almost impossible for those discussions to go public.

Lead in paint, putty, solder, etc was my first career encounter ('70s)
with such discussions.
It was so frustrating to see technical proposals and solutions nullified
by industry management-types, politicos, and the other veto-ers.
It was always someone else's problem or responsibility, or there was no such problem.
Griff found an NPR discussion of fracking I feel is a good example

So far as "adapting" our lives to changes, I think this is going to happen... wanted or not.
Personally, I haven't actually tried to think about what kinds of things
could be done in the face of extended global warming.
I get stuck on things like war, abandonment, and other forms of apocalypse.

Compared with technical issues of prevention, the challenges involved
with reaction, repair, remediation, reparation, etc. are even more frustrating.
All I can imagine a cry of:
"Look out Canada, here come the Yanks"

As I say, my career experience always puts me into "prevention" mode.

[Undertoad]

A new round of emails from the world's top climate scientists has been leaked. Several global warming skeptics websites are beginning to go through the emails and have been published the very "worst" of what they could find, out of context.

Here is the longest list of them so far so that you can look at them and come to your own conclusions.

[piercehawkeye45]

You will find the same in every field. Doesn't mean anything.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A new round of emails from the world's top climate scientists has been leaked. Several global warming skeptics websites are beginning to go through the emails and have been published the very "worst" of what they could find, out of context.

Here is the longest list of them so far so that you can look at them and come to your own conclusions.

Certainly makes the process more murky.

Politico infused....

[classicman]

The headlines recently announcing no melting of Himalayan glaciers for the past 10 years are, no surprise,
not entirely accurate or telling the whole story. That's what you get for learning your science from the popular press.
The rest of the story is far more interesting. As usual, I look at the scientific paper all this hype is based on, and it
comes up with something that hasn't been so widely reported.

[TheMercenary]

Maybe the poles are shifting.

[Lamplighter]

The Atlantic
Alexis C. Madrigal
Aug 28 2012

The Mystery at the Heart of This Year's Record-Setting Arctic Ice Melt

You have probably heard that the Arctic has less sea ice right now than humans have ever recorded.
The new record, set yesterday, beat the previous low, which was measured in September 2007.

"By itself it's just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set," said National Snow and Ice Data Center
scientist Walt Meier in an official statement. "But in the context of what's happened in the last several year
and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing."

Extent of sea ice (sq miles)


Variation in thickness (volume ?) of sea ice