An inconvenient truth

[Happy Monkey]

Six years ago, apparently.

[Griff]

Maybe he means it then.

[mrnoodle]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a change. Just cuz I feel like it.

Okay, let's say that supervolcanoes ARE worse than human pollution. Why does it matter? All that means is that the planet is more doomed than we thought, because what we don't destroy, nature will. We're in a buggy headed for a cliff with no way to get off or stop, but that's no reason to whip the horses.

Or something. Nah, I still like the other side of the argument.

[Flint]

Let us take a look at the big picture: nature has a homeostasis.
There is a natural carbon cycle, and we are altering it. The only question is: how much?

The next fact we have is: fossil fuels will eventually run out.
The status quo of our infrastructure is guaranteed to have a dead end.
Should we be prepared, or simply let the momentum of big business carry us off the cliff?

Let us combine the things we know, and think about what to do next.

[tw]

Of course, who do we believe. An author from caranddriver.com who coincidentally says what George Jr - well proven liar - says? Or from those who come from where the work gets done. This from Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate (and I recall Rush Limbaugh mocking this man back then):

CURRENT STATE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE:
RECENT STUDIES FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
...
Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As stated in the Academies 2001 report, “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” ...

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future.

Simulations of future climate change project that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4 F (1.4 to 5.8C) above 1990 levels. Similar projections of temperature increases, based on rough calculations and nascent theory, were made in the Academies first report on climate change published in the late 1970s. Since then, significant advances in our knowledge of the climate system and our ability to model and observe it have yielded consistent estimates. Pinpointing the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by remaining gaps in understanding the science and by the fact that it is difficult to predict society’s future actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy use practices. ...

It is important to recognize however, that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen more than the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly. ...


The Earth is warming
The most striking evidence of a global warming trend ... show a relatively rapid increase in temperature, particularly over the past 30 years. ... records ... indicate that global mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7F (0.4C) since the early 1970’s. Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence ...

Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise. Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As stated in the Academies 2001 report, “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”

Cicerone statements demonstrate reality. Mankind is contributing seriously to global warming. The questions that wacko extremists want to halt and distort: "how much and how destructive". Good people would ask such questions. Fools would insist that global warming does not even exist - as a mental midget president even tried to claim in 2001 and 2002.

Those who deny global warming have a political agenda as demonstrated by the pathetically bad rationalization in that caranddriver.com article. An article with such bad logic that a ferocious challenge is required. xoxoxoBruce I make no apologies for accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously.

[mrnoodle]

oh noes

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Of course, who do we believe. An author from caranddriver.com who coincidentally says what George Jr - well proven liar - says? Or from those who come from where the work gets done. This from Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate (and I recall Rush Limbaugh mocking this man back then):
Cicerone statements demonstrate reality. Mankind is contributing seriously to global warming. The questions that wacko extremists want to halt and distort: "how much and how destructive". Good people would ask such questions. Fools would insist that global warming does not even exist - as a mental midget president even tried to claim in 2001 and 2002.

Those who deny global warming have a political agenda as demonstrated by the pathetically bad rationalization in that caranddriver.com article. An article with such bad logic that a ferocious challenge is required. xoxoxoBruce I make no apologies for accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously.

Show where anyone posting in this entire thread...or even anyone quoted or linked by a poster......said Global Warming does not exist.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Can't find it? Well how about, show me where somebody claimed human activity has no effect on the climate, no contribution to Global Warming.

Take your time, I'll just paint my house, inside and out, while I wait.

No, huh? OK, an easy one. Show me where you disproved the numbers in my first post. Yeah numbers.....go ahead, disprove the numbers.
Interpretation of how significant very small numbers are, can be discussed ad infinitum, but neither you, nor I, have the background to really say for sure and as the myriad of input from all those scientists shows, mere logical thinking won't do it either, because they are being surprised by their Mother Nature, constantly.

As for your, "accurately defining the integrity of that article by challenging it accordingly - ferociously", that's bullshit, toothless ferociousness. Logical people don't challenge the validity by saying George Bush, (noted liar), agrees so it must be a lie, or claiming the author has no credentials when he cites expert testimony. Want to discredit? Disprove the numbers.
You keep preaching (9 out of 10 scientists agree) the sky is falling, but since I'm not as smart as you, I'll just keep asking questions.


Now, back in the 50's/60's internal combustion engines(primarily vehicles) were spewing a shitload of crap into the air. Over the subsequent 40 years, technology has reduced the nasty crap by something like 99%. Even though there's a lot more engines, the crap emitted is way down. That leaves co2 as the major pollutant, major greenhouse gas, from engines.

CO2 along with cement production seem to be our largest contributions at the moment. Since these human contributions appear to be a small percentage of the big picture, at most fueling the increase in speed of Global Warming, it seems to me it would take a major change in lifestyle to have even a tiny effect.
Plus a major change in the lifestyle of the west might only offset the rapid increase in the east. You can bet China, and it's neighbors, will be a major contributors in the future.

There is a PDF from Technology Review, showing a graph of temperature, co2 and sea levels, for the last 400k years.
http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...imatechart.pdf

NASA planetary scientist Jim Hansen says that if we continue to increase greenhouse-gas emissions, temperatures will rise between 2 and 3 ºC this century, making Earth as warm as it was three million years ago, when seas were between 15 and 35 meters higher than they are today.

That's interesting because all the articles/statements I've seen in the past, say sea levels will rise about 0.9 meters. 15 to 35 meters is mucho more lot biggerish than 0.9,....aw, call it 1 meter. I wonder where this ambiguity comes from? How does he know what the temperature was 3 million years ago? Is Hansen disconnected from the scientific community? Wasn't it Hansen that started, or at least one of the first involved with, this whole Global Warming debate?


One more thing....are we there yet?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, ok Flint.

[Hippikos]

I´m surprised the Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, hasn´t entered this discussion until now.

A 1997 UCLA study showed that Los Angeles is 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding areas. Because of the traffic causing more CO2 in the air? No, it´s because mostly due to dark roofs and asphalt. Cars and power plants contribute, but only a bit; at high noon, the sun delivers to each square mile the power equivalent of a billion-watt electrical plant.

A mere 0.5 percent change would solve the greenhouse problem completely. Problem is that 70% of Earth is water and that absorbs more light than it reflects.

[bluesdave]

Oh....bluesdave, if you figure it all out....you will give UT an exclusive, won't ya?

Uh, I wish I could. All communication with the outside world has to go through the public relations bureaucrats in the government. Anyone caught talking to the public directly, is chopped!

Hippikos:

A mere 0.5 percent change would solve the greenhouse problem completely. Problem is that 70% of Earth is water and that absorbs more light than it reflects.

As I have told Bruce, it's not that simple. We have learnt a lot since 1997. Also, don't forget that clouds cover part of the oceans too, but you are generally correct. Water makes up a huge percentage of the Earth's surface. The biggest problem with the oceans are the changes to the oceans' currents. Those changes directly affect precipitation over land (eg. the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon). Another problem is the destruction of algae in the ocean, which we now suspect take out as much carbon from the atmosphere as all the plants on land combined.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I´m surprised the Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, hasn´t entered this discussion until now.~snip

One of the things that surprised me about albedo, is that cutting down forests where there is snowfall, creates a more reflective surface and a cooling effect. I'd always assumed cutting forests always leads to a worse condition.
Of course there are a whole slew of effects from deforestation, (mostly bad), but this is one of the little quirks that comes up to show how complicated the science is.

[mrnoodle]

But you're not quite at the level of scientist. That is the purest form of human, and is above reproach in all things. Prophet's pretty good though. You should still be able to get into the popular kids' parties.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

In order to for "science" to have a "bias" it would require a monolithic agreement among 100% of all scientists, to "pretend" to have proven something and "fool" the rest of us. That's a laughable premise. Occam's Razor...

Originally Posted by Flint

The dreaded Liberal Media Conspiracy has wrapped its insidious tentacles around science itself!

Originally Posted by Flint

...those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves. Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How did I know there was an attack on religion coming.

It's not an "attack" - it's pertinent to my point, IE highly publicized criticisms of science, in our society today, which have a transparent agenda.

[Flint]

Somebody commented on climate researchers having an agenda, and I pointed out that those who want to discredit climate research may have an even bigger agenda, IE business interests which benefit by maintaining the status quo. By way of example, the same way that some creationists hope to maintain their own status quo, IE strict Biblical interpretation, and subsequently attempt to discredit evolution research by exaggerating the disagreements among some researchers, or by focusing on the things that are not yet fully understood. Sound familiar?

Let me spell it out for you: my comment was that there appears to be a parallel, in methods, among those who attempt to discredit a branch of science which threatens their particular status quo. I felt this was worthy of comment, in this thread. If you feel this is unworthy of comment, then don't comment on it. Just move on and keep your childish jabs to yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why don't you keep your childish anti-religion agenda to yourself.
Is it because it so consumes you, it's impossible to consider any situation/problem without it affecting your position, I don't know.