Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

[ReefBuddha]

Taking the logic of Buddha, we should never question the president or ask our doctors for a second opinion cause we're just not smart enough to understand.

I think you completely misunderstood my point, but that response may in fact support the one I was making.
---------------------------------------------

I'm guessing a climate scientist would chuckle at the feeble attempts of a few fish geeks to grasp the depth of the climatology field. If you all really want to ask someone qualified, then try using the links to the science forums I posted . It's also a quick way to realize how unqualified we are on the subject.

 

[MCary]

Rosseau,

Basically, because it isn't the safe road. Recycling our aluminum cans and driving hybrid cars aren't going to do it. We would have to completely change from an industrial society to ??? Well that's the question, what to change to. Even a technology society needs industry. This change, if global warming alarmists are correct, needs to be completely done within 50 years.

If they're wrong, whats wrong with clean energy and a cleaner environment? Well if they're wrong, we will have gambled with the economy of the entire western world risking a dark age similiar to that whcih happened after the Roman empire fell. Plus diverted resources. Just the money necessary for the US to adhere to the Kyoto accords could feed and vaccinate every starving person in Africa. Choice, gamble that GW might be real, elliminate world hunger? Hmmm, what do you choose?

Anything that burns will produce CO2 and making hydrogen (another possible energy source) releases massive CO2. The best option is Nuclear and Hippie isn't going to stand for that. Large Hot Wheels for everybody.

I would caution against blindly accepting IPCC reports or using them as a reference. They are an agenda driven group who owe their existence to the certainty of Global Warming. They have never seen a confirming study they didn't like and have dismissed any that didn't fit. I'm sure you want an example. Sorry, I get long winded but here goes.

Have you heard of the "hockey stick graph". This is a graph used to beat non-believers over the head since 1998. It looks like this:

The IPCC jumped all over this. It was used in Kyoto. But anyone with even a rudamentary understanding of science, statistics and this subject matter could tell it was wrong at a glance. We spoke of controls earlier. In this case the controls were out of range. We know that there was a midevil warm period from 700-1300 AD, we also know there was a "little ice age" from 1560-1830. We know from writing in civilizations around the world, that these were global events. Yet the graph does not show them. These are controls. If these events are not on the graph the graph is invalid. The IPCC is supposed to be a group of experts. They should have seen this right away. In my eyes, they have been discredited.

BTW, very thoughtful reponses after the first rant.

Mike

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9127462#post9127462 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
I'm not considering carbon sinks etc., i'm assuming they stay the same.......

Well, not really. Oil is a carbon sink, now it's obviously a source. Trees are huge sinks, and the regrowth of US forests actually makes the US a NET CO2 SINK. Ironic, isn't it? But yeah, carbon sinks change all the time. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/00/q4/1110-global.htm

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9127829#post9127829 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
BTW, do you know what the most abundant GHG is? Water vapor. Water vapor causes increased atmospheric CO2. So, is CO2 causing global warming, or is global warming causing increased CO2? Or since periods with rapidly increasing CO2 levels also saw decreased global temps, (example 1970's), maybe neither.

I know Hippie will disagree, and will probably site good reasons why, but it still makes you go hmmmmmmmmmm and want to know the answer right?
Mike

How does water vapor increase atmospheric CO2?

You are correct about water vapor having the most impact on GW, but there's a catch. Water vapor is temperature dependent, whereas CO2 isn't. CO2 will give a sort of baseline temp for the planet (along with methane, solar variations, bagillions of other factors, etc) that isn't temp dependent. Of course methane is released from melting permafrost, so I guess methane could be temp dependent, sort of, but not directly. Anyway, increase the global temp avg above freezing and more vapor is available for warming. Drop the temp below freezing, and all of a sudden water vapor doesn't matter anymore, whereas CO2 does. CO2 has a multiplying effect on warming for that reason, a positive feedback loop.

However, water vapor also condenses and reflects sunlight, thereby helping to cool the planet. So, meh, I'm sure there are varying concentrations of vapor and CO2 and temp that give different warming trends. Point is, we don't know for sure how this part of the equation will play out. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

BUT, CO2 warms, and there is WAYYYY too much of it right now. So, by the time vapor, condensed droplets, and CO2 reach a relatively steady equilibrium temp, the damage is probably already done.

 

[Rosseau]

Mike,


feeling lazy today... I should be writing an essay right now (due tomorrow)

I understand economics and the implications of all of this. I know that it would be unwise to spend lots of money on useless causes. However, there are things such as investing in renewable energy technologies now that will have direct economic payoffs later. We will run out of the current fossil fules we're using at some point (etc..). They aren't too efficient either. The costs are high at first as with any new technology but regardless of climate change, the implementation of these sorts of things will make us more efficient in the future.

-The sorts of things we're going to want to do anyways.

There has to be a way we can help ourselves with our own ingenuity, as we've done so many times in our history. So i'm saying we might as well explore and fund these ventures now. I believe we'll need them at some point anyways.


I realize too that you can argue the world has more pressing current issues, AIDS, poverty, war...

 

[Rosseau]

Hippie, I know carbon sinks change.. I was pretending for a moment that they stay neutral as the CO2 in the atmosphere changes to illustrate my point better - as there is some discussion over just how the earth's carbon sinks will react to atmospheric change.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9132556#post9132556 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
If they're wrong, whats wrong with clean energy and a cleaner environment? Well if they're wrong, we will have gambled with the economy of the entire western world risking a dark age similiar to that whcih happened after the Roman empire fell.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Right. You call me an alarmist? Not only are you an alarmist on this point, you are an alarmist with nothing to back it up. If I had to take bets on what is more flexible and adaptable, the environment or a free market economy, I'll take the economy EVERY time. Don't you agree?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9132556#post9132556 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
The IPCC jumped all over this. It was used in Kyoto. But anyone with even a rudamentary understanding of science, statistics and this subject matter could tell it was wrong at a glance.

You call yourself a scientist?

The hockey stick paper has been amended somewhat, but nobody claims the overall result is wrong. Too much to paraphrase:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

 

[MCary]

This graph is wrong. It is obviously and easily proven wrong. It was rediculous that it was ever accepted in the first place and the fact that some orgainizations still cling to it destroys their credibility.

Mike

 

[ReefBuddha]

silly scientists and thier scienciness. :rolleye1:

Al Gore - Nobel Nominee
The fight for the global climate is a fight for peace, say members of parliament Børge Brende and Heidi Sørensen, and they have nominated former US Vice-president Al Gore for a share of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Canadian environmentalist Sheila Watt-Cloutier is now nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.Former US VP Al Gore has thrust the global climate change issue into the public consciousness. The two green-thinking MPs suggest that Gore share the prize with Inuit Sheila Watt-Cloutier, in recognition for their efforts to put the danger posed by climate change on the global political agenda.

"This is clearly, absolutely, one of the important efforts to achieve conflict prevention. Climate change can lead to enormous flows of refugees on a scale the world has never seen before. Fighting climate change is immensely important work for global peace," Heidi Sørensen, member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party (SV), told Aftenposten.

 

[MCary]

Well that settles it then. Buddha. The eye roll cinched it. And Algore. Who is more of a hero than Algore?

I wonder why the graph is most commonly referred to as the "now discredited hockey stick graph" ?

Mike

PS. Sarcasm and belittlement does not advance your arguement.

 

[MCary]

M.I.T. Professor of Meteorology and believer in Global Warming is even confused about the data:

"We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change"

"The Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940"

"the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

Mike

 

[ReefBuddha]

MC my sarcasm was merely illustrating how absurd this would sound to an actual climate scientist since the worldwide consensus from scientists who are actually qualified is openly known. If it offended you, I do apologize.

Frankly though I don't understand how anyone expects to be taken seriously after insinuating they have answers that have eluded the entire worldwide scientific community for 40 years. A few college-level reef geeks are so far from qualified on the subject it's comical.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9133901#post9133901 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
M.I.T. Professor of Meteorology and believer in Global Warming is even confused about the data:

"We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change"

"The Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940"

"the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

Mike

Any idea who this Professor is?

 

[scottras]

Thought this article might be of interest. The main sceptics on Climate Change.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500

 

[ReefBuddha]

interesting, thanks.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9134585#post9134585 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefBuddha
Frankly though I don't understand how anyone expects to be taken seriously after insinuating they have answers that have eluded the entire worldwide scientific community for 40 years. A few college-level reef geeks are so far from qualified on the subject it's comical.

Then stop participating, because honestly, your constant reef geek comments are annoying. If this is soooo absurd, and soooo below your obviously superior sensibilities, then stop, please.

 

[MCary]

Oops Sorry;

Richard Lindzen, MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology

 

[MCary]

Scottras, I was going to say how typical it is for liberals to attack the motivations of a group rather than its data, but I realize that I suspect self interests on the other side too.

I think it would be more intelletually honest to accept that environmentalist and climate scientist actually believe the Earth is warming and probably have no agenda at all. I believe both sides have a legitamate point of view and that its unfortunate that they break down ideological lines.

Having said that, I would say, that even with the most noble of intentions, should one believe that global climate change is a real concern and set out to prove it, they would find mountains of evidence supporting their thesis. Since the Earth is huge, the climate is complex and has been changing since the beginning, finding evidence that it is still changing can hardly be difficult.

Mike

 

[ReefBuddha]

well said MC.

Sorry Hippie but that's just not worth a response, imo.

This is where we might find some people actually qualified to discuss climate science research. Although very quickly I think we'll see how unqualified we are in comparison. Science forums realclimate.org, sciforums.com , or thescienceforum.com.

List of climate science resources, from usa today, and here.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9135487#post9135487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Scottras, I was going to say how typical it is for liberals to attack the motivations of a group rather than its data, but I realize that I suspect self interests on the other side too.

I think it would be more intelletually honest to accept that environmentalist and climate scientist actually believe the Earth is warming and probably have no agenda at all. I believe both sides have a legitamate point of view and that its unfortunate that they break down ideological lines.

Having said that, I would say, that even with the most noble of intentions, should one believe that global climate change is a real concern and set out to prove it, they would find mountains of evidence supporting their thesis. Since the Earth is huge, the climate is complex and has been changing since the beginning, finding evidence that it is still changing can hardly be difficult.

Mike

Yes unfortunately when there is a tendency to attack people reather than science in this debate. That being said I believe that knowing where an organisations funding comes from is essential information when deciding on the validity of that organisations findings.