Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[ScottulusMaximus]

By how much? Can we accurately quantify it at present?

And are there more negative effects than positive effects from this simple fact? How can we know if we can't even accurately quantify this effect?

Thank you Techne my point exactly, the point is we simply don't know!!!! The climate has been around for millions of years but our records go back at MOST 400years, you cannot draw conclusions from such a small amount of data. Yes ice cores, sediment deposits etc are expanding our understanding but it's still not nearly enough.

 

[w1z4rd]

I'll just put this here... (strong language)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1325805851224851246

I would advise people to read this though so they have a more balanced view: http://goo.gl/1a9pe

 

[w1z4rd]

Thank you Techne my point exactly, the point is we simply don't know!!!! The climate has been around for millions of years but our records go back at MOST 400years, you cannot draw conclusions from such a small amount of data. Yes ice cores, sediment deposits etc are expanding our understanding but it's still not nearly enough.

Ive got techne on ignore so cant see if he is disputing any of the facts presented. Someone quote him if he disputes one of the actual facts I have mentioned. What I am seeing is a lot of ducking and diving and no one actually disputing any of the facts I presented in bullet form.

Let me guess... none of you are ganna challenge those facts? (if you do, quote the specific fact and deal with it directly). If you are not ganna challenge them Im ganna let you go back to peddling your pseduoscience and get back to doing something more interesting.

As that article says, "those libertarian blinders". *sigh* http://goo.gl/1a9pe

Except, of course, that P&T’s libertarian blinders simply do not allow them to accept something that is so obvious to anyone who looks at the data and listens to the actual experts in atmospheric science: yes, Penn, global warming is happening; and yes, Teller, a good part of it is caused by human beings. Instead, the best P&T can do is to resuscitate a television weather man from the 1970s to assure us that global warming is a myth. And of course we have the predictable appearance of a guy from a libertarian think tank (the Cascade Policy Institute), who has no credentials that we know of, except being President of said think tank. (Note to self: create own think tank and declare yourself President. Make sure to have web site and business card. No thinking is actually necessary.) Needless to say, no one with a knowledgeable alternative viewpoint is presented during the show.

Instead, our libertarian heros keep telling us to relax, enjoy life, and drive SUVs, despite showing at the beginning of the episode a good number of frightening examples of all too real environmental destruction. Even Penn and Teller, however, have limits. Right at the end of the show, Penn enters a confessional (again with the Catholic Church!) and admits that he isn’t sure that there isn’t global warming, and that he isn’t positive that humans don’t cause it. But he tells us that even if that were true, heck, nobody knows what to do about it, so once again, go out and party all night long, because somehow technology and the god of free markets will solve every problem for us.

That, my dear Penn and Teller, truly is Bull****!

 

[nakedpeanut]

I would advise people to read this though so they have a more balanced view: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/09/dear-penn-and-teller-bull****.html

I agree on a few points and one of the main things is that people have to be mature and admit:

Even Penn and Teller, however, have limits. Right at the end of the show, Penn enters a confessional (again with the Catholic Church!) and admits that he isn’t sure that there isn’t global warming, and that he isn’t positive that humans don’t cause it. But he tells us that even if that were true, heck, nobody knows what to do about it, so once again, go out and party all night long, because somehow technology and the god of free markets will solve every problem for us.

Sure we could be warming the planet, but we could also be in a natural heat cycle?
People are too quick to jump to conclusions.. Plus I'll be dead by then so who cares..

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Which of those facts do you want to dispute? Specify directly.

Here they are again:

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

Take your pic

Ok fine, one at a time then...

1. Yes the temperature of the earth is rising, has done this many times before otherwise we would still be stuck in the last Ice Age. THE CLIMATE CHANGES all the time!!!! Doesn't mean we have anything to do with it.

2. CO2 concentrations have increased in the past to much higher levels than we have now, with NO concurrent increase in global temperatures as others have said.

3. Sure we are contributing by the burning of fossil fuels etc etc etc but is this enough to make the slightest difference, we have no idea...

4. No it hasn't... Has increased far more 'dramatically' in the past and we're all still here...

5. See No. 3

6. And you know this how???

EDIT:- sorry was irritated so didn't add this earlier, as nakedpeanut(cant believe I just typed that) said "Sure we could be warming the planet, but we could also be in a natural heat cycle?" point is no one knows...

 

[w1z4rd]

Ok fine, one at a time then...

1. Yes the temperature of the earth is rising, has done this many times before otherwise we would still be stuck in the last Ice Age. THE CLIMATE CHANGES all the time!!!! Doesn't mean we have anything to do with it.

So you accept that earth is warming as per my fact. Good. Then you add your own psuedoscientific opinion. I understand it.

2. CO2 concentrations have increased in the past to much higher levels than we have now, with NO concurrent increase in global temperatures as others have said.

You do not deny the fact that CO2 levels are increasing. Then you add your own opinion, but you do not dispute the fact. Excellent.

3. Sure we are contributing by the burning of fossil fuels etc etc etc but is this enough to make the slightest difference, we have no idea...

You accept we are contributing to the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere. Well done for accepting that fact. You admit you have no idea despite your earlier claim to have looked at the evidence... which implies a lack of real looking at the evidence. Ill help you there

"Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2."

Please read for the evidence. Get an informed opinion on this.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

4. No it hasn't... Has increased far more 'dramatically' in the past and we're all still here...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm

You did not dispute the fact. I am not denying there were higher CO2 levels in the past. You also accepted I was right in number 3.

5. See No. 3

Cool, so you basically didnt dispute any of the facts directly and didnt look at the evidence. Got it

6. And you know this how???

I looked at the evidence.

Based on the arguments you are using, please check them against this first:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Almost all of them are dealt with. Please go look at the evidence. Look at the arguments and test them there.

 

[w1z4rd]

Sure we could be warming the planet, but we could also be in a natural heat cycle?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm (please read this, it deals with that cannard)

People are too quick to jump to conclusions.. Plus I'll be dead by then so who cares..

Yeah, amazing how the worlds scientific community got together like this with over 50 years of research, across racial, country, religious and ideological differences... and how ... you know. Theyre all saying the same thing. Not even evolution was that good at uniting scientists.

 

[nakedpeanut]

I encourage you guys to read this paper:
A global climatic model based on the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system
http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=...age&q=temperature of the earth rising&f=false

PDF: http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay/Courses/ATOC530/Sellers.JAM.1969.pdf

And this paper:
The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth
PDF: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x/pdf

Good reads and interesting...
Basically assuming the Suns radiation stays the same we continue to increase our heat output, it will increase the temperature of the planet.. (Duh)
But we aren't producing enough heat/energy yet to really say for sure yet since the solar constant can change (refer to the models in the papers).
It's swaying in the favour of global warming, but if the solar constant deceases by only 4% we could see ice age conditions.

So like I said, who knows..

Edited..

 

[w1z4rd]

So like I said, who knows..

Scientists, most world governments, most major corporations (including big oil) and basically people who look at all the evidence. Take those blinkers off. Check the link I gave you. Surely you wanna know all the evidence?

Edit: And your solar radiance argument is dealt with here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Its the 2nd point in that link which shows you are not even bothered to look at the evidence. Wow.

 

[nakedpeanut]

Scientists, most world governments, most major corporations (including big oil) and basically people who look at all the evidence.

But they don't, their models make huge assumptions. And even predict we could go towards an ice age if things only slightly change.

**I'll resume this tomorrow **

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Ok so your saying that climate change in the past is a "psuedoscientific opinion", then you're an idiot...

It's not an opinion that's a fact that in the past rising CO2 levels haven't coincided with climate warming.

I have not denied your facts that is true because as far as I can tell they are correct, I just differ in the conclusions drawn from these facts. Where as you are arrogant in your superior knowledge I admit that it is highly probable that we know pretty much nothing about our climate as it is such a young science with such little data.

Your links are pure nonsense as they are from a website written by the author of the book "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism" as well as 'Climate Change Denial" and contains no links to other publications or citations of his facts.

Saying you looked at the evidence from this one website(all you've shown me) means nothing...

Could humans be affecting climate change, possibly but we simply don't know yet.

 

[w1z4rd]

Ok so your saying that climate change in the past is a "psuedoscientific opinion", then you're an idiot...

Nope I did not say that. I said your opinion is psuedoscientific in its context to the fact being presented and the issue being discussed. IE, your answer is not based on whats considered a reasonable scientific explanation to the issue.

It's not an opinion that's a fact that in the past rising CO2 levels haven't coincided with climate warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

I have not denied your facts that is true because as far as I can tell they are correct, I just differ in the conclusions drawn from these facts.

Well I kinda listen to the scientists and read the arguments for... and against.... and then I listen to the scientists again.

Where as you are arrogant in your superior knowledge I admit that it is highly probable that we know pretty much nothing about our climate as it is such a young science with such little data.

Im not being arrogant. I know this issue pretty well and I will fight it passionately because its more important than worrying about hurting your feelings. You lie about there being little data. If you are ganna speak bs on an important issue like this expect people to call it.

Your links are pure nonsense as they are from a website written by the author of the book "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism" as well as 'Climate Change Denial" and contains no links to other publications or citations of his facts.

Did you read any of the evidence?

Okay, is NASA good enough for you? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ They also part of your "evil scientist" global warming conspiracy theory?

Saying you looked at the evidence from this one website(all you've shown me) means nothing...

I didnt say that. You said that. I read from way higher sources, I gave you a link that dealt with common cannards climate change trolls are peddling. I was hoping you could look at these incase you had become fooled by one of them

Theres a ton of evidence out there if you want me to go through just about every respected scientific organization in the world.. but lets first here your NASA conspiracy

Could humans be affecting climate change, possibly but we simply don't know yet.

You dont know and choose to remain ignorant as to the truth. Any one can see this. Science denialism 101

I have to ask. Are you libertarian? Dunno if you are, but this looks like their cannard broadside on this issue.

 

[w1z4rd]

But they don't, their models make huge assumptions. And even predict we could go towards an ice age if things only slightly change.

**I'll resume this tomorrow **

In that link I showed you, please quote a "huge assumption". Tomorrow

 

[Unhappy438]

Im not here to argue with the previous people they are beyond reasoning, some of the new people seem a little more open minded however.

I would like to submit this :

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[2][3][4][5] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.

What About Scientists and Papers That Challenge the Consensus?

Some claim that there are 31,000 U.S. scientists and over 850 peer-reviewed papers that challenge the consensus that humans are causing climate change. Skeptical Science gave these claims the greatest benefit of the doubt and came up with this interesting factoid:

31,000 scientists represents 0.1% of US scientists that hold a BS degree or higher
850 papers represents 0.1% of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change

To make matters worse :

Counterclaims of a conspiracy to undercut climate science

Some investigators say there is evidence those alleging a conspiracy are themselves part of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to 'manufacture controversy', undercut the scientific consensus on climate change and downplay global warming's projected effects.[34][35]
In general, critics say that individuals and organisations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists had reached their conclusions, that these doubts have influenced policymakers in both Canada and the US, and that they have helped to form government policies.[35]
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
— The truth about denial, S Begley, Newsweek[36]
Greenpeace presents evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial with their Exxon Secrets project.[37][38] A further Greenpeace study from 2011 claims that 9 out of 10 climate scientist who claim that climate change is not happening, have ties to ExxonMobil and that Koch industries in the past 50 years have invested more than US$50 million dollars in spreading doubts about climate change.[39][40][41] ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut its funding to many of the groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy, although it continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."[42] A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[42]
Former United States Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated on the Diane Rehm Show (WAMU-FM, July 21, 1997):
It's an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts... the energy companies need to be called to account because what they are doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people.

Sources : http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_scientific_consensus.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

 

[Swa]

Your personal views are irrelevant to the truth. Let me give you an example. I have a dog. Its a male, but your personal view is its female. Your personal view does not change the sex of my dog. Facts are facts.

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

Fact: Earth's temperature has not risen in the last decade.

Sure since the industrial age man has been putting CO2 in the atmosphere but either an equilibrium has been reached, thermodynamics holds that this will happen as hot bodies exchange heat more quickly, or whatever is happening is not dominated by CO2. Other substances have been in use since the industrial age as well like CFCs. Their use has been dramatically cut back over the last decade.

But they don't, their models make huge assumptions. And even predict we could go towards an ice age if things only slightly change.

**I'll resume this tomorrow **

As is the case with all pseudo-science.

 

[killadoob]

Remember swa that it is no longer global warming as that was debunked, they have now changed it to climate change because as you mention the planet is not heating up. If anything temps are cooler.

Climate change is the right word but the climate has always changed so it's nothing new. I also read with the coming solar storms we could go back into the ice age something ghoti will never admit to.

The sun driving our temps, cannot be surely? who would have guessed the sun is doing it. http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...fbeats-think-zebras-fresh-look-global-warming

 

[Unhappy438]

Remember swa that it is no longer global warming as that was debunked, they have now changed it to climate change because as you mention the planet is not heating up. If anything temps are cooler.

General scientific consensus says otherwise.

Climate change is the right word but the climate has always changed so it's nothing new. I also read with the coming solar storms we could go back into the ice age something ghoti will never admit to.

Thats based on conjecture formed in the 70s, no solid evidence for it.

The sun driving our temps, cannot be surely? who would have guessed the sun is doing it. http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...fbeats-think-zebras-fresh-look-global-warming

Nobody claimed the sun isn't playing a role.

 

[killadoob]

Interesting report i read today that volcano activity could be cooling the planet.

July 5, 2012 – CLIMATE - A University of Saskatchewan-led international research team has discovered that aerosols from relatively small volcanic eruptions can be boosted into the high atmosphere by weather systems such as monsoons, where they can affect global temperatures. The research appears in the July 6 issue of the journal Science. Adam Bourassa, from the U of S Institute of Space and Atmospheric Studies, led the research. He explains that until now it was thought that a massively energetic eruption was needed to inject aerosols past the troposphere, the turbulent atmospheric layer closest to the earth, into the stable layers of the stratosphere higher up. “If an aerosol is in the lower atmosphere, it’s affected by the weather and it precipitates back down right away,” Bourassa says. “Once it reaches the stratosphere, it can persist for years, and with that kind of a sustained lifetime, it can really have a lasting effect.” That effect is the scattering of incoming sunlight and the potential to cool the Earth’s surface. For example, the massive eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 temporarily dropped temperatures by half a degree Celsius world-wide. The research team includes scientists from the U of S, Rutgers University in New Jersey, the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, and the University of Wyoming. They looked at the June 2011 eruption of the Nabro volcano in Eritrea in northeast Africa. Wind carried the volcanic gas and aerosol – minute droplets of sulfuric acid – into the path of the annual Asian summer monsoon. The stratosphere’s calm layers are high – from 10 km up at the poles to 17 km altitude at the equator – and it was thought storms could not pierce it. For example, the distinctive flattened “anvil” shape at the top of large thunderstorms is created as the storm pushes against the stratosphere. Dust from the Nabro volcano, being slightly heavier, settled out, but the monsoon lofted volcanic gas and the lighter liquid droplets into the stratosphere where they were detected by the Canadian Space Agency’s OSIRIS instrument aboard the Swedish satellite Odin. The Nabro volcano caused the largest stratospheric aerosol load ever recorded by OSIRIS in its more than 10 years of flight. OSIRIS, designed in part at the U of S, is used to study the upper atmosphere, particularly the ozone layer and atmospheric aerosols. Originally intended for a two-year mission, the instrument has been functioning flawlessly since its launch in 2001. It circles the earth from pole to pole once every hour and a half, downloading fresh data to the analysis centre at the U of S campus. –Red Orbit

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/

 

[Techne]

Your personal views are irrelevant to the truth. Let me give you an example. I have a dog. Its a male, but your personal view is its female. Your personal view does not change the sex of my dog. Facts are facts.

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

Fact: The earth's temperature has risen in the 20th century.
Fact: Solar activity has risen in the 20th century.
Fact: Solar irradiance alone does not account for the increase earth temperature of the 20th century.
Fact: Solar irradiance is not the only solar index that can affect temperature change.
Fact: Scientific evidence suggest that the sun is able to modulate cloud formation on earth which in turn can affect global temperatures.
Fact: We don't know the magnitude of this effect, research is being conducted.
Fact: Solar activity has been decreasing for the past 5-10 years.
Fact: Temperatures have remained steady for the past 5-10 years.
Fact: Solar activity is likely to decrease in the coming 20 years.
Fact: Past decreases in solar activity have been associated with cooling of global temperatures.

Fact: the sun and CO2 both play roles in modulating global temperatures, we just don't know how much.

 

[w1z4rd]

[video=youtube;kijVlez5R9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kijVlez5R9w&feature=related[/video]