Global warming news you don't hear about

[Ziggy Stardust]

We have been pumping CO2 into the atmophere for more than 150 years, here is the data from the CO2 levels in Hawaii from the last 50 years, where is the sea level rise data that fits with the CO2 levels rise? Nowhere because the two sets of data does not fit.

Sea levels have risen.

Why? what window? The sea levels haven't risen significantly in the last 150 years while we were pumping CO2, why do you believe they are about to rise now?

Sea levels have risen

If you are wrong you would have wasted and awful amount of money and efforts to fix something that is not broken, you would have broken the economy of many countries and you wouldn't have fix many things that need to be fixed with the limited amount of money and effort in our hands.

Using energy more efficient is breaking the economy? Please explain that one to me. If I am wrong we have put in the effort to reduce our energy consumption and invest in cleaner enegry. Cleaner energy doesn't come free you know and also has economic benifits. Or would you like the money spend on energy to keep going to the middle east? How does that benifit our economy? New technologies will lead to new products which can be sold to customers and have to be manufactored, this will all benefit the economy.

If I'm wrong we will have found ways to use less energy where there is no ecological need. So? How does that harm us or the economy?

Now if you are wrong, we're up **** creek with the **** level rising.

The chances that I am right is higher than the chances that you are right since there are measurements that not only show the sea rising, it's temperature is increasing. Increasing temperature in the sea will cause a changing global ecology. Furthermore there will be more severe storms and floodings. Please explain to me how are those economical benefits.

 

[Goa]

We have been pumping CO2 into the atmophere for more than 150 years, here is the data from the CO2 levels in Hawaii from the last 50 years, where is the sea level rise data that fits with the CO2 levels rise? Nowhere because the two sets of data does not fit.

Firstly kudos that at least you accept the measurments on CO2, there are people who even deny that fact...

Why? what window? The sea levels haven't risen significantly in the last 150 years while we were pumping CO2, why do you believe they are about to rise now?

As mentioned before, sealevels have risen and will continue to rise, but according to the IPCC report the rise until the end of the 21st century is not that dramatic as presented by press but somewhere between 18 and 59 cm. But sealevels rising is far from being the only danger from climate change.
Unfortunately the others risk are not as "sexy" and not as easy to grasp as sealevel rise, but if you are intersted in a thourough analysis which, as you can see if you read it, is definietly not written in a "we are doomed" style:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
And in some month you can see the 2007 version, with 6 years of research added.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmm, those are the exact figures I heard in the press

Allthough those rising levels aren't uniform because of the global streams. Holland for instance will see higher levels (around 30 to 80 cm). This of course will also mean that in different part of the globe the levels will not rise or not at those levels. Which will make the denyers come out and say: see: the levels in that particular part of the world hasn't rissen, so it;s all bunk. Just like we are seeing now with glaciers.

 

[Sidhe]

The English economy has collapsed because of it's adhering to CO2 targets etc, we're all on the dole now, thanks Blair Just mythical these claims, it's hilarious, especially considering in the long run you will save money, but then since when does anyone give a damn about ten years from now, that's like way in the future dude!

 

[ori]

Since global warming isn't against the Bible, then it must be money.

Well actually it is against the Bible

So companies that produce products that contribute to global warming are against the notion that it exists, and they either lobby politicians or they contribute to political campaigns. So, Republicans are diehard against global warming, so they're receiving contributions from companies that profit from products that contribute to global warming.

But seriously: there is no doubt that Global Warming is occurring nor is there (serious) discussion anymore on whether humans contribute to it. The real discussion is what to do about it and here we get into trouble, since realistically cutting emissions in the US and Europe while the rest of the world multiplies its emissions will only transfer wealth from the US and Europe to other countries but will do little to effect Global Warming...

 

[carlosMM]

realistically cutting emissions in the US and Europe while the rest of the world multiplies its emissions will only transfer wealth from the US and Europe to other countries but will do little to effect Global Warming...

Luckily, this is not correct. Want an example?

Würth solar has started makin tons of money with solar cells.
Along the German Autobahn, planting a 100m wide strip of plants that produce high biogas amounts when fermented could save the money paid as subsidies to the farmers that now grow and raise stuff we do not need, while at the same time providing enough gas to all of Germany's automobiles (including trucks) AND making our economy a bit less dependent on imports of fossil fuels. It may end up cost neutral, or even a profit.

And so on......

 

[Goa]

Luckily, this is not correct. Want an example?

Würth solar has started makin tons of money with solar cells.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that the economy as a whole profits from it. It's also thinkable that they make their profit on cost of society, and society as a whole loses. I'm not sure whether this is right or not, just saying that your example isn't proof that society as a whole wins.

Along the German Autobahn, planting a 100m wide strip of plants that produce high biogas amounts when fermented could save the money paid as subsidies to the farmers that now grow and raise stuff we do not need, while at the same time providing enough gas to all of Germany's automobiles (including trucks)

You got some reliable data on this? Especially on the part that this would be sufficient for the whole of Germanys gas-consumption?

 

[carlosMM]

But this doesn't necessarily mean that the economy as a whole profits from it. It's also thinkable that they make their profit on cost of society, and society as a whole loses. I'm not sure whether this is right or not, just saying that your example isn't proof that society as a whole wins.

Oh, who talks about 'winning'? I'd be glad if we managed not to lose too much!

You got some reliable data on this? Especially on the part that this would be sufficient for the whole of Germanys gas-consumption?

I saw something on TV recently (SAT1? IIRC). They did cite several proper studies, and I talked to a guy who reviewed one of the studies (ain't conventions nice?). It seemed pretty real, except for the typical German problem: the natural gas must fulfill a norm, and that norm is not a minimum norm, but actually gives a range. And biogas is usually above it. So the farmers are not allowed to feed it into the natural gas networks.


As for using biogas for transportation: I drive a Diesel that can take any form of diesel, including rapeseed diesel. Sadly, gas-driven cars are rare. But I know people who have a Prius (IIRC) what has a natural/biogas + Otto enginge combination (no, it is not a regular Prius). They claim that their garden would produce enough fuel - and they drive a LOT!

Sorry, can't do much better atm, I am too busy to go hunting for studies and such.

 

[El_Machinae]

Using energy more efficient is breaking the economy? Please explain that one to me. If I am wrong we have put in the effort to reduce our energy consumption and invest in cleaner enegry. Cleaner energy doesn't come free you know and also has economic benifits. Or would you like the money spend on energy to keep going to the middle east? How does that benifit our economy? New technologies will lead to new products which can be sold to customers and have to be manufactored, this will all benefit the economy.

Firstly, let me remind our audience that I'm concerned about climate change, and that I believe that investments now will reduce costs later, and that it's best for our economies to be proactive in reducing CO2 levels and to capture the economic cost of CO2 output.

However, it's important to not make the broken-window fallacy. If cleaner energy is not going to help the climate and environment (even though I believe it will) then there is little economic benefit to investing in cleaner energies. Economics are greatly tied to the cost of energy, and we want to keep energy as cheap as possible. Forcing people to spend extra on more expensive energies will dampen the economy.

Finally, the GDP per CO2 unit has been increasing for years. This shows that innovations and efficiences can continue to exist in this area. Even if we freeze CO2 output, we can expect the economies to continue to grow. Maybe not as quickly, but they'll grow. This should be compared to the reality that climate change might very well cause a reduction in our economies, due to the cost of shifting populations and infrastructure.

Conserving energy is good for the economy, for a variety of reasons. Reducing the cost of energy is also good (which is what many people are focusing on, reducing the cost of alternate sources). Finally, progress in the area of energy development (alternates) is good too, because it gives energy a greater mobility and utility; and therefore we can spur development in areas that are poor in the standard energy sources.

 

[Urederra]

Urederra, it is nice to see you make such a obviously nonsensical argument - who claims there is a direct, linear and immediate link between CO2 and sea levels?

Is it nice? strange wording.

Well, science is about causality. and the IPCC is claiming that there is a link between CO2 and sea levels. The whole Bangladesh is going underwater because of anthropogenic CO2 rise thing. Gore even says it is gonna be 6 meters rise in the next century (I haven't seen the movie, but that is what I read he claims, 20 feet rise) Do you believe that? others, among the IPCC if I am not wrong, have pictures in their websites showing how the Earth would be if the ice caps and other ice on land melted, 60- 80 meters rise. Do you believe that?

Also, the sea levels have risen by roughly half a meter, last time I checked, so you are also using false data.

I haven't used sea level change data yet. I just posted the CO2 levels rise.

@ Quasar: this is a serious question, and so I ask again: who pays you? what are your motives for spreading such nonsense? or do you actually believe the conspiracy theory that all the science is wrong?

Man, calm down, why you think he is being paid? Are you looking for a better deal?

Nowhere? It was really easy to find this:

That is better, It does show a rise but not a link between the CO2 levels rise and the sea level rise. Actually, sea levels have been rising since the holocene, with periods of sea level drop, obviously not related to CO2, like in the 1980s, presumably due to El nino.

And here is an article about the sea levels change during the last milleniun, published by the American Geophysical union. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMOS71D0323T

Salt marshes along the north coast of Long Island Sound carry a detailed paleoenvironmental record, with information on relative sea level rise, climate and anthropogenic impacts (e.g., metal pollution). We studied fourteen salt marsh cores along the Sound, and here present data on cores from marsh islands in the mouth of the Connecticut River (Great Island) and the Housatonic River (Knells Island). Both are largely high-marsh environments, with a tidal range of 1.7 m at Great Island, 2 m at Knells Island. Cores are sliced in 2 cm intervals, dated with 210Pb, 137Cs and 14C, and benthic foraminifera are used as paleo sea level indicators. The records go back 600 years (Great Island) and 1500 years (Knells Island). Both locations show evidence for enhanced fresh water discharge around 1900 and 1950 AD, well-documented wet periods in the climate history of Connecticut. The relative sea level rise (RSLR) curve from Knells Island shows little change between 500 and 1000 AD, then the rate of RSLR accelerates until ~1600 AD to about 2.5 mm/year. From 1600 to 1700 AD, the curve is flat, then rises to about 1.7 mm/year, with an acceleration to 3 mm/year in the last 100 years. The Great Island RSLR curve shows a rate of 1.7 mm/year from 1400 AD on, with a short slow-down at ~1700 AD, and a slightly faster rate of 2.3 mm/year in the last 300 years. These data are similar to those in our other RSLR curves from the Long Island Sound marshes: RSLR rates are variable over the last 1000 years (~1 mm/year on average), and accelerate in the last 200-300 years to about 2.5-3 mm/year. The exact date of the beginning of the recent acceleration remains to be determined because it falls in the dating gap between viable 210Pb and 14C ages. Many curves show a slight decrease in rate of relative sea level rise around 1500-1600 AD, which we correlate with the coldest stretch of the Little Ice Age. The Knells Island core appears to show an acceleration around 1000 AD, which may correlate with the onset of the Medieval Warm period, but this signal is hard to discern in many other cores. A pronounced, short slow-down in the rate of relative sea level rise occurred around 600 AD in several cores. We tentatively correlate this episode with a coeval cold snap recorded in the GISP2 ice core record. The data thus suggest a direct link (no significant lag time) between climate change and rates of RSLR on the northeastern US seaboard.

It shows rises and drops during the medieval warm period and during the Little ice age, which according to Mann's hockey stick graph, they didn't exist.

Sea levels have risen.
Sea levels have risen

They have been risen since the end of the last glaciation. Is the link to anthropogenic CO2 what I was asking for.

Using energy more efficient is breaking the economy? Please explain that one to me.

I haven't say that. Do you think that the industry, or people at home or while driving don't want to save money by using energy more efficiently? We are pursuing more efficient and less polluting methods since the beginning of history, that is what is called progress. But that is not what it is being proposed, what is it being proposed is to cut CO2 amisions by stop burning oil, to stop producing goods. and that breaks the economy. Not the economy of China and India, though, because it seems that China and India have licence to pollute.

Of course I am for more efficient methods of producing energy. Give them to me and I will use them, but, can you give them to me without me having to pay more for my energy? No you can't.

If I am wrong we have put in the effort to reduce our energy consumption and invest in cleaner enegry. Cleaner energy doesn't come free you know and also has economic benifits. Or would you like the money spend on energy to keep going to the middle east? How does that benifit our economy? New technologies will lead to new products which can be sold to customers and have to be manufactored, this will all benefit the economy.


If I'm wrong we will have found ways to use less energy where there is no ecological need. So? How does that harm us or the economy?

Again, looking for more efficient means of energy is something that mankind has been pursuing since the beginning of history, and we will look for it no mattter what. To find them is another story. But again, that is not what it is being proposed, what it being proposed is to CUT energy production by CUTTING oil consuption and by moving to less efficient ways of producing energy.

Now if you are wrong, we're up **** creek with the **** level rising.

Do you believe the 6 meters sea level rise in the next century that Gore claims?

The chances that I am right is higher than the chances that you are right since there are measurements that not only show the sea rising, it's temperature is increasing.

And is this only due to anthopogenic causes? Not very likely, since temperatures have changed and sea levels have changed since forever. Climate is dinamic by itself.

Increasing temperature in the sea will cause a changing global ecology. Furthermore there will be more severe storms and floodings. Please explain to me how are those economical benefits.

Can you prove it? What do scientists like Fred Singer say about that?

We have to ask, what is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather.

Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.

(Fred Singer is s an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues.)

What is the experience of living on warmer Earth in the past? Positive. just look at the Medieval Warm period in Europe.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So, now you say that it is rising. Even if there is a non lineal relation, it matches your CO2 graph pretty well. You are contradicting yourself.

And about your last quoted paragrah its very counterproductive for you argument too. It says that sea level rising has been accelerating in the last 100 years as you can see in the graph i posted.

 

[Goa]

Is it nice? strange wording.

Well, science is about causality. and the IPCC is claiming that there is a link between CO2 and sea levels.

There is one additional step in the argumentation which is that temperatures are rising due to (amongst others) CO2 and due to this rise in temperature sealevel will rise, but in principal you are right.

The whole Bangladesh is going underwater because of anthropogenic CO2 rise thing. Gore even says it is gonna be 6 meters rise in the next century (I haven't seen the movie, but that is what I read he claims, 20 feet rise) Do you believe that?

I haven't seen the movie but unless you provide some proof I won't believe that Gore said this. According to my information he was quite close to the scientifc consensus, and the corresponding numbers I posted in the post above. And by the way, this guys a politician, so it does not matter what he tells...

others, among the IPCC if I am not wrong, have pictures in their websites showing how the Earth would be if the ice caps and other ice on land melted, 60- 80 meters rise. Do you believe that?

I believe that they have those pictures , but if you make those claims it would be nice to provide a link ... and I don't believe that this is relavant for the question how the world will look like in 1 century, but eventually in some millenarys (The energy necessary to melt ice is huge, so even if the surface temperatures stabalise in 100 years, the ice will continue to melt for a very long time...).
But what is your point?

That is better, It does show a rise but not a link between the CO2 levels rise and the sea level rise.

Lol, this direct link is of course impossible to provide. So of course this relation alone is far from being the only evidence for global warming theory, but it is another mosaic in the whole picture. Or did you hear anybody (anybody = any serious scientist, not Al Gore, not the press) claim that this is THE prove?

Actually, sea levels have been rising since the holocene, with periods of sea level drop, obviously not related to CO2, like in the 1980s, presumably due to El nino.

And here is an article about the sea levels change during the last milleniun, published by the American Geophysical union. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMOS71D0323T



It shows rises and drops during the medieval warm period an
d during the Little ice age, which according to Mann's hockey stick graph, they didn't exist.

So what you showed is that since the last ice age sealevel have risen on a timescale of about 1000 to 2000 years by over 12m, and that for the last 1000 years the sealevel were quite well correlated to temperature. Again, What's the point? That temperature hasn't been stable before? That doesn't make the breaking news, everybody knows it...
And by the way you're graph shows well what a difference in temperature can do: 12 meters is far from being nothing... but luckily it takes a long time

 

[Urederra]

So, now you say that it is rising. Even if there is a non lineal relation, it matches your CO2 graph pretty well. You are contradicting yourself.

I was asking for a sea level rise linked to CO2 level rise. No contradictions. Maybe it wasn't clear the second time I mentioned it. I assumed that it was understood the first time I mentioned that I was looking for a link.

And about your last quoted paragrah its very counterproductive for you argument too. It says that sea level rising has been accelerating in the last 100 years as you can see in the graph i posted.

... that is just one point in the whole study. In the other gauge the acceleration happens in the last 300 years, and don't forget the other accelerations, deccelerations and drops obviously not linked to CO2 levels that the study shows.

There is one additional step in the argumentation which is that temperatures are rising due to (amongst others) CO2 and due to this rise in temperature sealevel will rise, but in principal you are right.

fair enough. I am glad to see that somebody doesn't think that there is only one cause for temperature rising. Fred Singer claims that a temperature rise wil cause a drop in sea levels because that will produce more snow precipitation in the poles. Not that I am using that as an argument, but just I want to point out that the so claimed consensus does not really exist.

I haven't seen the movie but unless you provide some proof I won't believe that Gore said this. According to my information he was quite close to the scientifc consensus, and the corresponding numbers I posted in the post above. And by the way, this guys a politician, so it does not matter what he tells...

Fair enough too. I drop that one until somebody proves me wrong or right.

So, you don't believe that everything what politicians say is true? Me neither. Scientists are better, but they are not infallible either, and they also can cheat, something to take into account too. look at the non-existant ozone hole for example.

I believe that they have those pictures , but if you make those claims it would be nice to provide a link ... and I don't believe that this is relavant for the question how the world will look like in 1 century, but eventually in some millenarys (The energy necessary to melt ice is huge, so even if the surface temperatures stabalise in 100 years, the ice will continue to melt for a very long time...).

I have read that in a webpage, I didn't claim that they have it, only that I read they have it. I am very lazy to find if it is true, so I let other people find them.

But what is your point?

That people are using obviously unscientific predictions as scare tactics because they fit in their political agenda.

Lol, this direct link is of course impossible to provide. So of course this relation alone is far from being the only evidence for global warming theory, but it is another mosaic in the whole picture. Or did you hear anybody (anybody = any serious scientist, not Al Gore, not the press) claim that this is THE prove?

That is why I think the IPCC should be more humble in their assertions. If you fail to predict sea levels change in a 6 years running model, don't be so assertive when talking about sea levels rise in the next 100 years.

So what you showed is that since the last ice age sealevel have risen on a timescale of about 1000 to 2000 years by over 12m, and that for the last 1000 years the sealevel were quite well correlated to temperature. Again, What's the point? That temperature hasn't been stable before? That doesn't make the breaking news, everybody knows it...[/QUOTE]

Really? Mann's hokey stick graph doesn't show the medieval warm period or the little ice age. Temperature hasn't been stable before, right. I am not that sure that everybody knows it, but anyway. Temperature changes, climate changes, it is dinamic by nature. Temperature and sea levels have been changed before without human intervention.


Anyway, very good post of yours.

 

[Goa]

fair enough. I am glad to see that somebody doesn't think that there is only one cause for temperature rising. Fred Singer claims that a temperature rise wil cause a drop in sea levels because that will produce more snow precipitation in the poles.
Not that I am using that as an argument, but just I want to point out that the so claimed consensus does not really exist.

May I ask you whether you ever bothered to actually read this piece of the devil called IPCC report? This is taken into account for calculation of sealvel rises (and I think it is the main source of uncertainty).
By the way, have you tried to do search for Fred Singer in google? Sorry, but looking at his records I don't trust this guy. And not only this, but the statements you can read from him, while much better than those of most others global warming deniers, just aren't good. Some of them are just wrong and for most I have an idea that probably they are wrong, so if you want to we can invite gothmog for enlightment on some of his arguments.

So, you don't believe that everything what politicians say is true? Me neither. Scientists are better, but they are not infallible either, and they also can cheat, something to take into account too.

Right, scientists can cheat, and unfortunately some (too much?) do so. But not thousands of scientists for more than 20 years. Not on a topic that is politically and economically that hot. Sorry, but my imagination just doesn't reach that far to imagine a conspiracy of this extend. I'm currently doing my PhD in physics, so I think I know at least a bit about how the whole science thing work, and those guys are so selfish, that you can be sure as hell that if they find an attackable position of an adversary, they will certainly don't miss their chance.

look at the non-existant ozone hole for example.

Care to enlighten me on this comment to? I was convinced, but without looking in detail, that the ozone hole is one of the big success story of international collaboration on environmental issues. That it was real, and that due to stopping throwing CFCs in the air the problem is fixed.

That people are using obviously unscientific predictions as scare tactics because they fit in their political agenda.

Who is people? (Part of) the press can sell by scarce tactic, and part of the environmental movement just likes scarce tactics (for a reason I didn't get yet...). But while, as you, I despise scarce tactics, it doesn't mean that the basic message behind must be wrong.
And that the predictions are unscientific is just wrong.

That is why I think the IPCC should be more humble in their assertions. If you fail to predict sea levels change in a 6 years running model, don't be so assertive when talking about sea levels rise in the next 100 years.

They predict 18 to 59cm, which corresponds to errorbars of about 100%. In my book this is already quite humble. Again, just read a bit the IPCC report, and you will see that the weaknesses and uncertainties are openly discussed, and not hidden.

Really? Mann's hokey stick graph doesn't show the medieval warm period or the little ice age. Temperature hasn't been stable before, right. I am not that sure that everybody knows it, but anyway.

Don't you think that Mann's hockey stick graph is somewhat outdated? While there might have been flaws in this original graph, newer studies confirm that his main point, which is that today the rate in change of temperature is higher than before.

Temperature changes, climate changes, it is dinamic by nature. Temperature and sea levels have been changed before without human intervention.

This is an argument that appears again and again in this kind of discussion and I don't really know why anybody thinks that this argument is important. What this means, in my opinion, is that non anthropologic climate change is possible, and hence that the currently observed warming might be of natural origin.
But how one can conclude that this is an argument why current change certainly isn't caused (better: strongly influenced) by humans is just a miracle to me.
And you can be certain as hell that all scientists no that.
(Did I mention the IPCC report? They are discussing in detail natural forcings...)

Anyway, very good post of yours.

Thanks, I'm trying my best . If you have some university around, I can consult you a little experiment, go randomly in any physics/chemistry department, and ask any randomly chosen prof (not working in the field, for to be sure that he isn't part of the conspiracy!) what he thinks about the global warming debate. You will notice that most "advocates" are far from being zealots.

 

[Urederra]

May I ask you whether you ever bothered to actually read this piece of the devil called IPCC report? This is taken into account for calculation of sealvel rises (and I think it is the main source of uncertainty).

Yep, and they say there is one parameter wrong in their calculations. (At least one, I would say)

By the way, have you tried to do search for Fred Singer in google? Sorry, but looking at his records I don't trust this guy. And not only this, but the statements you can read from him, while much better than those of most others global warming deniers, just aren't good. Some of them are just wrong and for most I have an idea that probably they are wrong, so if you want to we can invite gothmog for enlightment on some of his arguments.

Oh, yes sir, I have searched for Fred Singer in google, I have also searched for Richard Lindzen too, or Patrick Michaels, David Legates, Duncam Wigham or Nigel Weiss... all of them scientists researching in fields related to climatology. Now I ask to you. Do you think is normal the personal attacks many of them receive just because they don't agree with the global warming alarmists? Do you think that saying this about Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT is acceptable? I think somebody is not so sure about the veracity of their arguments when they have to slander people that way. He is a professor of Meteorology at MIT, for the Giant Spaguetti Monster's sake.

Right, scientists can cheat, and unfortunately some (too much?) do so. But not thousands of scientists for more than 20 years.

They can be wrong, I have also contemplated that posibility.

Not on a topic that is politically and economically that hot. Sorry, but my imagination just doesn't reach that far to imagine a conspiracy of this extend. I'm currently doing my PhD in physics, so I think I know at least a bit about how the whole science thing work, and those guys are so selfish, that you can be sure as hell that if they find an attackable position of an adversary, they will certainly don't miss their chance.

The ozone hole thing is a good example... (BTW, good luck with your PhD.)

Care to enlighten me on this comment to? I was convinced, but without looking in detail, that the ozone hole is one of the big success story of international collaboration on environmental issues. That it was real, and that due to stopping throwing CFCs in the air the problem is fixed.

Of course I can. and taking the data from www.theozonehole.com nontheless.

look at the graphic.

The deplection of the ozone layer never reached 100 % It says so in the webpage. So, Antarctica never had a hole in its ozone layer.

And that the predictions are unscientific is just wrong.

They are wrong if the parametrization is wrong, and, as they confess, one parameter (at least) in their models is wrong. And that is only for a 6 years model. If you extend the calculations for a hundred years, the errors can only get bigger, since the modelling is an iterative process.

They predict 18 to 59cm, which corresponds to errorbars of about 100%. In my book this is already quite humble.

Nope, that is not being humble, You see, they predict a rise with huge error bars, just to have more chances to make a right guess. Just like when you go to a casino and you bet for the 1st and 2nd 12 in the roulette. you'll have close to 66% chances of being right. if the ball falls in a number between 1 and 24 you win, if it falls in a number between 25 and 36 or 0 you lose. With huge error bars is easy to get it right, Nostradamus become famous using that exploit. Yet they got it wrong.

Again, just read a bit the IPCC report, and you will see that the weaknesses and uncertainties are openly discussed, and not hidden.

What I meant by humble is when talking about the predictions. You can't assure that the temperatures or sea levels are going to be this or that in 100 years time when your models are wrong and fail to predict in a 6 years time span, even when using huge error bars to catch the wright answer. They should have been humble when talking about their future predictions.

Don't you think that Mann's hockey stick graph is somewhat outdated?

If by outdated you mean wrong, then yes. What I don't understand is how it got publised in Nature in first place, when even any layman could see that the medieval warm period is missing. Anyway, Hwang Woo-Suk also got their papers published in high impact journals.

While there might have been flaws in this original graph, newer studies confirm that his main point, which is that today the rate in change of temperature is higher than before.

I disagree, the main point is that during the medieval warm period the earth enjoyed temperatures as warm as nowadays without the intervention of CO2. The graph was basically missleading because it pointed that CO2 was the only cause of temperature change. With the medieval warm period and the little ice age in the middle, you have to consider other factors obviated by Mann's graph.

This is an argument that appears again and again in this kind of discussion and I don't really know why anybody thinks that this argument is important. What this means, in my opinion, is that non anthropologic climate change is possible, and hence that the currently observed warming might be of natural origin.
But how one can conclude that this is an argument why current change certainly isn't caused (better: strongly influenced) by humans is just a miracle to me.
And you can be certain as hell that all scientists no that.
(Did I mention the IPCC report? They are discussing in detail natural forcings...)

Don't be so black or white. Global temperatures are conditioned by multiple factors, one of them IS CO2 levels, How much is the influence of CO2 levels on global temperatures? that is the key question. Is it 100 % of the actual warming? I don't think so. (that is why the lack of medieval warm period in Mann's graph is so important) Is it only 10 %? Then why bother spending money and efforts trying to lower the levels of CO2 if the actual warming is mainly due to other causes?

 

[BasketCase]

Sweet. I take a sabattical for a couple weeks, and yet another global warming thread is all....WARMED UP (hee hee) for me to jump into.

Forum, Sweet Forum.

Right, scientists can cheat, and unfortunately some (too much?) do so. But not thousands of scientists for more than 20 years. Not on a topic that is politically and economically that hot. Sorry, but my imagination just doesn't reach that far to imagine a conspiracy of this extend.

Science has indeed been "cheating" (not quite the word I would use, bear with me for a bit here) and they have been doing it by the thousands, and for a lot longer than twenty years.

A century ago, global warming was never even considered by humans to be a problem. Go back a few centuries, and "spontaneous generation" was a commonly-accepted idea. Go back a few centuries more, and the "modern" medicine of the time said that a good cure for insanity was to cut a hole in the insane person's skull. Those are just a few examples--there are so many more out there. At each step, the cutting-edge science of the time--with its most advanced tools and methods--supported theories which would later turn out to be wrong. At each step, we humans think we're the be-all and end-all of knowledge. We're frequently wrong.

It's not really "cheating", and it's definitely not "conspiracy". The problem is simply that as the frontier of human knowledge expands, the answers keep changing on us.

The recent advent of "Global Dimming" vindicates what I've been saying in these threads. Before global dimming came along, everything was much simpler: Pollution Was Bad. Period. It was just common sense. Now, suddenly, it appears that our efforts to eliminate one problem--pollution--may have made another problem--global warming--even worse.


So, if you're wondering why we shouldn't be going all-out to fix global warming, there's your answer. The kicker is, that answer isn't a sure thing. It's a "definite maybe". Which is precisely what humans generally hate most.

 

[Quasar1011]

Got any support for this outlandish claim?

Outlandish? Are you saying climate, once changed, never changes back? That, sir, is outlandish!

El Nino and the North Atlantic Oscillation are two examples of short-term climate change. What science is now investigating is long-term climate change- and there are 2 sides to that issue.

When and where are they pushing any agenda? As you have shown, the media spend an incredible amount of time and effort to report the nonsense that is not backed by facts! Or where did you get your links?

I have not shown news that is being widely reported by the media- at least in the United States. I have provided links to articles that show what the American media is not telling people- that there are scientists around the world who disagree with the notion that mankind is driving global warming. That the media spend an incredible amount of time and effort to report the nonsense that is not backed by facts, as you have said, is exactly what has been happening on American television!

I'm going to take a breather on this for several days. I'm taking my wife to Las Vegas for her birthday.

 

[Gothmog]

Urederra, you see what you want to see and I can't change that. I'm not going to do subjective debate with you, only clarify when you present bad science or missleading statements.

It seems you are now arguing that we should promote global warming as a positive development? That's a new one from you I think.

The ozone hole is just a name for the 50-90% ozone loss experienced by the Antarctic in the spring. It has been conclusively shown to be due to CFC's. You know that I'm sure, but again you see what you want. This is typical of your arguments. I can't always tell if you know better or not.

I agree that no one can predict climate out 100 years into the future, there are too many bifurcations in the system.

That is not the same as using climate models to study current climate where we know the basic forcing of the system from measurements.

The Mann issue is again you seeing what you want to see, the 'hockey stick' paper came out in 1998 and at the time was the best reconstruction available (and that's why it got published in Nature, it was excellent work). We've gone over it before and I showed you the error bars associated with it, and with the McIntyre work, and I also showed more recent reconstructions by Mann et. al. and others.

I'm not going to search for our discussion but I'm sure anyone interested could with key words 'McIntyre' and 'Mann'.

There was a congressional hearing on the topic here in the US (due to a witch hunt by people like you) - Mann was totally exonerated and is still considered one of the top paleoclimatologists in the world. Again, your continued revival of this point is typical of your arguments. You say things that don't make sense (like that Mann denies the existence of the medieval warm period - he could teach us all about it, that's his field of expertise), don't back them up with a reference, and I can't tell if you know better or not.

I really can't tell what point you are trying to make about sea level changes. Obviously the ocean has a huge amount of thermal inertia, and coupled ocean atmosphere models aren't as advanced as climate models that use a more static ocean. Give me a specific quote from the IPCC, or something if you want to discuss. The IPCC represents the current state of science, and yes error bars are part of science.

Main thing I wanted to point out is that the consensus certainly does exist (and I'm not sure why you link to a conspiracy page wrt Lindzen).

Check the web page of any major scientific organization. The AGU, APS, ACS, AAAS, etc. They all have consensus statements on the efficacy of CO2 in warming the troposphere, i.e. global warming.

That's what a consensus is, it doesn't mean there are no dissenters. It means a consensus.

No scientists thinks that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate. That's just stupid. Again, I can't tell if you know better or not.

 

[Goa]

Yep, and they say there is one parameter wrong in their calculations. (At least one, I would say)

Did they word it like that? Wrong? Or was it one of the following terms: uncertain, unknown, unprecise... Sorry if I'm nitpicking but in this case it's necessary, as the meaning changes a lot with the deatiled wording.

Oh, yes sir, I have searched for Fred Singer in google, I have also searched for Richard Lindzen too, or Patrick Michaels, David Legates, Duncam Wigham or Nigel Weiss... all of them scientists researching in fields related to climatology. Now I ask to you. Do you think is normal the personal attacks many of them receive just because they don't agree with the global warming alarmists? Do you think that saying this about Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT is acceptable?

Lol, your link is interesting. It's the stereotypical eco-communists-radicalist style that I hate so much...
I prefer this site: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1
so while I certainly don't like the style of the site you linked, I think it is valuable information to know where somebody gets money from. This indeed can change the credibility of certain persons.

I think somebody is not so sure about the veracity of their arguments when they have to slander people that way. He is a professor of Meteorology at MIT, for the Giant Spaguetti Monster's sake.

The problem is that we are dealing with quite complex issues, where its somewhere between difficult and impossible for the average citizen to understand the scientific debate. So sooner or later it boils down to a competition of credibility, and there, again, I think its interesting to know that allmost all of the (already very few) sceptics have a link to big oil, and that the sceptics represent a very small minority.

The ozone hole thing is a good example... (BTW, good luck with your PhD.)

Thanks, I will need it

The deplection of the ozone layer never reached 100 % It says so in the webpage. So, Antarctica never had a hole in its ozone layer.

So your main gripe is the wording ozone "hole"? What other term would you prefer? Ozone depletion?

They are wrong if the parametrization is wrong, and, as they confess, one parameter (at least) in their models is wrong. And that is only for a 6 years model. If you extend the calculations for a hundred years, the errors can only get bigger, since the modelling is an iterative process.

Sorry if I'm always asking for a link, but it wouls really help if I would know what exactly you are speaking about at the moment.

Nope, that is not being humble, You see, they predict a rise with huge error bars, just to have more chances to make a right guess. Just like when you go to a casino and you bet for the 1st and 2nd 12 in the roulette. you'll have close to 66% chances of being right. if the ball falls in a number between 1 and 24 you win, if it falls in a number between 25 and 36 or 0 you lose. With huge error bars is easy to get it right, Nostradamus become famous using that exploit.

So first you complain that they are to assertive, and then that they take to big error bars? You're not easy to satisfy...

I disagree, the main point is that during the medieval warm period the earth enjoyed temperatures as warm as nowadays without the intervention of CO2. The graph was basically missleading because it pointed that CO2 was the only cause of temperature change. With the medieval warm period and the little ice age in the middle, you have to consider other factors obviated by Mann's graph.

It's what you and other sceptics interpreted it like. But the main message of this type of graphs is that the current rise in temperature is steeper than any before.

Don't be so black or white. Global temperatures are conditioned by multiple factors, one of them IS CO2 levels, How much is the influence of CO2 levels on global temperatures? that is the key question. Is it 100 % of the actual warming? I don't think so. (that is why the lack of medieval warm period in Mann's graph is so important) Is it only 10 %? Then why bother spending money and efforts trying to lower the levels of CO2 if the actual warming is mainly due to other causes?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
On page 4 you can find the different factors. CO2 represents about 60% of the anthropogenic warming factors.

Greets, Goa

 

[carlosMM]

hehe, urederra's contunied denial reminds me of a good (and I mean 'good') friend of mine who used to trump out the 'human contribution is only 2% of the green hous effect' line. True, human contribution via green hosue gasse sis 2% of the TOTAL green house effect, including the 'natural' effect - and 98% of the INCREASE in it

It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary.