This was an eye opener - cont.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15413111#post15413111 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Alright then, to each his own, live long and prosper and all that good stuff....

Anywho, in case anyone is still paying attention, heres an article that was just written in the Financial Times, reporting how India is rejecting the west's findings on global warming, specifically the claim that the glaciers in the Himalayans are shrinking. The Indian environment minister points out how big a role the western media is playing in all this. Any thoughts? Ideas? Criticisms? Refutations?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11de-9713-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

It's because India is a developing country that needs all of the energy it can get, there is no surprise there. Although, my conspiratorial mind could run away with this. What better way for the West, which has already developed, to maintain its dominance than to create a global (i.e. Western) control mechanism over cheap energy that developing countries need? China and India aren't going to fall for the IMF scam, so something else is needed.

What is this talk about trying to find a primary source that is "alarmist"? Is that what you are asking ctenophors to find?

 

[Nihoa]

the problem with the entire issue of climate change is that it isnt a straightforward thing to explain. it isnt man-made, its man accelerated. it isnt the first time temperatures or carbon dioxide have increased but the rate at which we are seeing increases thats scary.

i saw a fella give a talk on cutting emissions and a few in the crowd were trying to debate with him as to whether or not global warming was occuring and whether we were causing it blah blah blah. in the end the speaker turned around and said climate change is only one symptom of the deteriorating health in people and in the environment. even if, big unlikely if, these pollutants arent causing gloabal warming we should be looking at cutting them anyway. these same pollutants are responsible for smog, acid rain, increased asthma, etc, etc. regardless of which issue you take with the emissions from combusted fossil fuels there simply isnt a positive side to continuing on the way we are.

 

[Dingo44]

India and China realize the impact on growth the mandates the west want instituted would have on their developing industries, they could care less about the environment right now. At the same time those mandates will slow growth in participating developed countries allowing China and India to catch up, although they've got a long way to go. But India does have some prestigious scientists that refute the claim that the western scientists are making about the Himalayan glaciers.

Scooter asked Ctenophor to find one primary source from a reputable climatologist that puts forth an alarmist position. I would like to see that too.

I asked Ctenophor to show me the primary source he mentioned from the video he linked in an effort to have him see what actual scientists are saying, not an entertaining high school science teacher who wheres funny hats.

 

[Dingo44]

BTW, I was a little too harsh on that guy earlier. His name is Greg Craven. He's a high school science teacher in Oregon who puts out webisodes about Man Made Global Warming in an alarmists perspective with props. He won an award from PBS for getting kids interested in sceince, wich means he's a good guy. So I apologize to Greg for defaming him on the web. I just think he simplifies his alarmists views, and wraps them up in semi convincing and entertaining speeches that high school kids can understand. I just hope he doesn't do that in the classroom.

 

[Nihoa]

what are you asking for? reputable scientists that believe current rises in greenhouse gases are causing and will continue to cause increases in average global temperatures? you could easily take your pick of the thousands that attend global climate change conferences. while al gore was a face and a voice in his presentations the information contained within was the work of many many reputable climatologists. sources supporting man caused climate change vastly outnumber those dismissing them.

the trouble with facts is they can always be flipped around and used another way. creationism is a great example of how facts can be twisted with poor logic and used as ammo for any cause. creationism ignores the body of evidence and picks out facts to suit its needs. thats not science. clearcuts are excellent habitat for moose, rabbits, and other plants and animals. thats fact but it has no context. we have lots of moose habitat but we are starting to severely lack old growth habitat for the animals that need it.

my point is nay-sayers like bjorn lomberg use a very reductionist approach in attmepting to counter argue climate change. their arguments, like creationism, confuse and divide the public because they use the same facts as proponents but do so out of context to the larger collection of information.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15418209#post15418209 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nihoa
what are you asking for? reputable scientists that believe current rises in greenhouse gases are causing and will continue to cause increases in average global temperatures? you could easily take your pick of the thousands that attend global climate change conferences. while al gore was a face and a voice in his presentations the information contained within was the work of many many reputable climatologists. sources supporting man caused climate change vastly outnumber those dismissing them.

the trouble with facts is they can always be flipped around and used another way. creationism is a great example of how facts can be twisted with poor logic and used as ammo for any cause. creationism ignores the body of evidence and picks out facts to suit its needs. thats not science. clearcuts are excellent habitat for moose, rabbits, and other plants and animals. thats fact but it has no context. we have lots of moose habitat but we are starting to severely lack old growth habitat for the animals that need it.

my point is nay-sayers like bjorn lomberg use a very reductionist approach in attmepting to counter argue climate change. their arguments, like creationism, confuse and divide the public because they use the same facts as proponents but do so out of context to the larger collection of information.

What I wanted from Ctenophors was a little effort on his part. You can't have a debate with a person that doesn't want to inform themselves.

Over the course of this discussion, I have read many peer-reviewed scientific studies on global warming. Although many do advocate a anthropogenic cause (or acceleration) for global warming and they do warn of the outcomes predicted in their models, the also are usually smart enough to give some indication as to the uncertainties involved. In fact, the NAS actually published a book that discusses how scientists need to improve their ability to communicate these uncertainties to the general public, so that the results are not misinterpreted.

I can't read the minds of all of the scientists out there, but personally as a scientist and a modeler, I tend to believe that the views in that article I linked are very much in line with those of the general scientific community. From all the studies I have read, I have not found any that express an undeniable certainty that the world will end in 50 years (or whatever time frame). Neither have I found any that suggest that reasonable measures can't be taken to rectify global warming.

As for the India study, yes, there are political reasons for India to dispute global warming, but I won't say that the India climatologists are wrong for questioning global warming. The issue I see with the Himalayan glaciers is that it is a local/regional effect that cannot be used to refute or support global warming.

Scott

 

[Dingo44]

You're right, GW is not a straightforward issue. It s so complex and so intricate, that's why I'm skeptical on the whole man made part. I could see it being a little more plausible for it to be man accelerated, but even then very insignificant. There are so many reasons to curb emissions and go energy independent it makes one's head spin. But I'm not convinced that we must sacrifice, via taxes, in order to save the planet from a looming catastrophe.

I point out the article about India to show the discrepancies between data collection and analysis of the Himalayan glaciers, one side says they're shrinking, the other says no. Why do things like that happen?

Please don't bring up Al Gore and his joke of movie. There are so many inaccuracies in that film that we could start a whole new thread.

 

[Nihoa]

your point about uncertainties in the models is just but it works the other way as well. there are many climate change models that underestimated how fast climate change would occur and the resulting impacts because they didnt account for or properly estimate rates for all the feedback loops. but joe blow doesnt want to hear about uncertainties in the models and doesnt want to bother himself with quatintifying the issue. despite the uncertainties in the models its safe to say qualitatively that **** is gonna hit the fan. we scientists can quibble over what percent of a degree per unit time things will heat up but heat up it will.

i agree that climate change isnt going to chase people down hallways like in 'the day after tomorrow' but we are seeing the effects and there have already been pacific islands abandoned due to increased inclement weather. in my part of the world foresters have predicted 5 of our major tree species will no longer inhabit the province in 100 years. we have been seeing the dieback for years and there are already experimental plots established testing hardiness of new species of trees to replace what we are losing.

the himalayan glacier issue may or may not be a result of global warming and people can argue the specifics of this particular case but it isnt an isolated case. glaciers and ice caps all over the world are melting and perhaps in this one area the melting is some natural phenomena but put into the larger context of whats happening globally it looks mighty suspicious.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15418293#post15418293 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
In fact, the NAS actually published a book that discusses how scientists need to improve their ability to communicate these uncertainties to the general public, so that the results are not misinterpreted.

From all the studies I have read, I have not found any that express an undeniable certainty that the world will end in 50 years (or whatever time frame). Neither have I found any that suggest that reasonable measures can't be taken to rectify global warming.

The issue I see with the Himalayan glaciers is that it is a local/regional effect that cannot be used to refute or support global warming.

Scott

 

[Nihoa]

theres nothing to be skeptical about. i need to tread lightly when i say this and im really not trying to be an *** but you realise that only 20% of americans believe in global warming yet these percentages hardly drop below 50% in most over countries and > 70% could be considered average in developed nations? if there is dog crap on your lawn and there is a dog standing there you wouldnt doubt the dog!

the graph below maps co2 levels and avg global temperatures through time. note they mirror one another. also take note that never in the past 1/2 millions years has co2 risen so sharply.

co2 and temperatures fluctuate naturally but our emissions have greatly fueled the most recent spike. no we didnt cause it all but it is undeniable that we put a whole lot of co2 into the atmosphere and no action lacks consequences.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15418658#post15418658 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
You're right, GW is not a straightforward issue. It s so complex and so intricate, that's why I'm skeptical on the whole man made part. I could see it being a little more plausible for it to be man accelerated, but even then very insignificant. There are so many reasons to curb emissions and go energy independent it makes one's head spin. But I'm not convinced that we must sacrifice, via taxes, in order to save the planet from a looming catastrophe.

I point out the article about India to show the discrepancies between data collection and analysis of the Himalayan glaciers, one side says they're shrinking, the other says no. Why do things like that happen?

Please don't bring up Al Gore and his joke of movie. There are so many inaccuracies in that film that we could start a whole new thread.

 

[Dingo44]

There is plenty to be skeptical about. Just because a majority of people agree with something, does not make it true. All those people you say "believe" (which is a funny term when talking scientific issues) in AGW are getting their info from bias, agenda driven media outlets. I'm surprise at the fact that only 20% of Americans believe in AGW, I thought it was higher, but the fact that 80% don't believe restores my faith in the free-thinking people in this country. Dog crap on a lawn huh? I don't think that analogy really works here.

Your graph shows a nice correlation, but that's about it. Correlation does not denote causality. There are plenty of examples in the geological past that show CO2 rising after global temperatures, not before. Whether or not CO2 is a cause or effect of GW is still being debated.

Again, there is a correlation between human emissions and rising temps in the past few decades. There was also a correlation between falling temps and the greatest period of increase in emissions following WWII. I know it has something to do with aresols from factories, but the fact remains it still happened. Looking at a few decades of data, even a century, in order to predict the next 50 or 100 years of our climate is like looking at a drop of water and predicting the way the entire ocean will behave. 100+ years of industrialization out of 4.5 billion, that's a very small data sample. No action at this point is better than the policies various governments are trying to enact.

 

[Dingo44]

The computer model issue has been dealt with here pretty well IMO by Scooter, so just read this thread and the one that was locked and you'll see why I don't trust them. The reason why those islands are being abandoned is not because of GW. There are many other possible reason why that's happening along with the deforestation issue you guys are having up there. AGW is a convenient scapegoat, especially when money is involved. Scientists who predict erradications of entire forests and tree species due to GW are irresponsible. The big ice sheets people keep talking about, Greenland, Antartica, the Himalayans, and the North Sea, are not shrinking. Greenland is melting along the edges, but increasing ice thickness in the middle, resulting in a net gain. The Ross ice shelf is losing mass, fairly quickly too. But the rest of the continent is gaining mass at an astonishing rate. The Himalayan glaciers are not receding, according to the stusies I've read. The ice sheet in the North Sea has been fluctuating for as long as humanity has been studying it. It was either this last winter or a few before, but the Northern ice sheet was the largest it's been in a while.

 

[Nihoa]

mega-groan. why would the worlds media be biased pro-climate change??? what evil could they possible have planned? and you think the US media, owned by those who have the most to lose, lack bias? free-thinking or not thinking? the US also has one of the lowest percentage of people that believe in evolution. im all for critical thinking and questioning the mainstream but doing so to a fault seems rampant in some parts of the states. all national and international scientific bodies have come out in support of the ipcc declaration that human activity plays a major role in current climate change. the average american might not believe in it but the vast majority of your scientific community do.

the graph below is exactly what i meant by asking who to blame for dog crap in your yard. the last graph i posted shows current co2 levels spiking like we havent seen through the last half million years. theres the dogshit. the graph below shows the steady and soon to exponential rise in co2 emissions since the industrial revolution. theres the dog. now who are you going to blame for the extra co2??

where are these graphs showing co2 spiking before temperatures? produce them. and who is debating one following the other?

no action or the precautionary principle is suicidal. the hole in the ozone layer was dicovered over a decade ago and we banned the necessary chemicals to prevent it from getting out of hand. the hole has expanded to its largest size yet these last few years but it is expected to begin to recede very soon as the last of these airborne chemicals are purged from the atmosphere. the action was taken a decade ago and the symptoms are only finally beginning to stabilise. as huge and scary of a problem that was it doesnt hold a candle to global warming. you might want to sit on your hands waiting for more information beyaond what has the rest of the world convinced but thankfully not everyone thinks that way.

there isnt anything odd about belief in science. science is about probabilities, not absolutes. you believe a theory to be true based on the evidence which differs from religion only in the nature of the evidence.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419360#post15419360 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
There is plenty to be skeptical about. Just because a majority of people agree with something, does not make it true. All those people you say "believe" (which is a funny term when talking scientific issues) in AGW are getting their info from bias, agenda driven media outlets. I'm surprise at the fact that only 20% of Americans believe in AGW, I thought it was higher, but the fact that 80% don't believe restores my faith in the free-thinking people in this country. Dog crap on a lawn huh? I don't think that analogy really works here.

Your graph shows a nice correlation, but that's about it. Correlation does not denote causality. There are plenty of examples in the geological past that show CO2 rising after global temperatures, not before. Whether or not CO2 is a cause or effect of GW is still being debated.

Again, there is a correlation between human emissions and rising temps in the past few decades. There was also a correlation between falling temps and the greatest period of increase in emissions following WWII. I know it has something to do with aresols from factories, but the fact remains it still happened. Looking at a few decades of data, even a century, in order to predict the next 50 or 100 years of our climate is like looking at a drop of water and predicting the way the entire ocean will behave. 100+ years of industrialization out of 4.5 billion, that's a very small data sample. No action at this point is better than the policies various governments are trying to enact.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15418985#post15418985 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nihoa
your point about uncertainties in the models is just but it works the other way as well. there are many climate change models that underestimated how fast climate change would occur and the resulting impacts because they didnt account for or properly estimate rates for all the feedback loops. but joe blow doesnt want to hear about uncertainties in the models and doesnt want to bother himself with quatintifying the issue. despite the uncertainties in the models its safe to say qualitatively that **** is gonna hit the fan. we scientists can quibble over what percent of a degree per unit time things will heat up but heat up it will.

This is exactly why the NAS needed to publish that book. It is because the LARGE magnitude of the uncertainties aren't being communicated to the public well. You seem to think the uncertainties are relatively small and it is quibbling over a few percent, but it isn't.

If we bring chaos theory into the discussion again, we see that even with an absolutely perfect model that involves no estimates, approximations, etc. the uncertainty is still huge. It needs to be understood that the climate system is a chaotic system, not a deterministic one.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419862#post15419862 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nihoa
mega-groan. why would the worlds media be biased pro-climate change??? what evil could they possible have planned? and you think the US media, owned by those who have the most to lose, lack bias? free-thinking or not thinking? the US also has one of the lowest percentage of people that believe in evolution. im all for critical thinking and questioning the mainstream but doing so to a fault seems rampant in some parts of the states. all national and international scientific bodies have come out in support of the ipcc declaration that human activity plays a major role in current climate change. the average american might not believe in it but the vast majority of your scientific community do.

the graph below is exactly what i meant by asking who to blame for dog crap in your yard. the last graph i posted shows current co2 levels spiking like we havent seen through the last half million years. theres the dogshit. the graph below shows the steady and soon to exponential rise in co2 emissions since the industrial revolution. theres the dog. now who are you going to blame for the extra co2??

where are these graphs showing co2 spiking before temperatures? produce them. and who is debating one following the other?

no action or the precautionary principle is suicidal. the hole in the ozone layer was dicovered over a decade ago and we banned the necessary chemicals to prevent it from getting out of hand. the hole has expanded to its largest size yet these last few years but it is expected to begin to recede very soon as the last of these airborne chemicals are purged from the atmosphere. the action was taken a decade ago and the symptoms are only finally beginning to stabilise. as huge and scary of a problem that was it doesnt hold a candle to global warming. you might want to sit on your hands waiting for more information beyaond what has the rest of the world convinced but thankfully not everyone thinks that way.

there isnt anything odd about belief in science. science is about probabilities, not absolutes. you believe a theory to be true based on the evidence which differs from religion only in the nature of the evidence.

Please read through the thread again. You'll see that noone said to not do anything about global warming. The reasons to reduce emmisions and move to sustainable energy sources are many, the least of which is probably global warming.

As I have said before, a correlation between CO2 emmisions and temperature is only a correlation. It does not demonstrate causality. That doesn't mean that they aren't related, it just means that the casual relationship isn't demonstrated by that kind of correlation.

Scott

 

[Nihoa]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419360#post15419360 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
No action at this point is better than the policies various governments are trying to enact.

 

[surfreef]

Green is the new red.

 

[Dingo44]

"mega-groan."

An even more mega-groan. See how annoying that is when someone writes something like that?

"why would the worlds media be biased pro-climate change??? what evil could they possible have planned? and you think the US media, owned by those who have the most to lose, lack bias? free-thinking or not thinking?"

You're putting words in my mouth. Of course the US media is biased! They're probably the worst around. I never said they weren't. I'm not going to go into great detail about why they are because it'll probably get the thread locked again, but a simple explanantion is ratings and the fact that diaster sells. When I said free-thinking, I meant the people who DON'T listen to what the US media says.

"the US also has one of the lowest percentage of people that believe in evolution."

Yes the US does need to figure it's stuff out about evolution vs creationism, but that conversation would also get the thread locked.

"all national and international scientific bodies have come out in support of the ipcc declaration that human activity plays a major role in current climate change. the average american might not believe in it but the vast majority of your scientific community do."

Yes a lot of national and international scientific bodies have agreed with the IPCC, but not all of them, and they all don't promote an alarmist's view. I don't think the IPCC is above reproach due to the simple fact that it is a political organization with political appointees created by another political organization, the UN.

A good number of scientists do believe in AGW, but not nearly as many that the media has led you to believe. I've got examples of polls with all sorts of different results about how many do or don't believe.

"the graph below is exactly what i meant by asking who to blame for dog crap in your yard. the last graph i posted shows current co2 levels spiking like we havent seen through the last half million years. theres the dogsh!t. the graph below shows the steady and soon to exponential rise in co2 emissions since the industrial revolution. theres the dog. now who are you going to blame for the extra co2??"

Ok, now I understand the dog crapping on the lawn analogy, you just weren't very clear the first time. You're putting more words in my mouth, I never said humans aren't to blame for some of the increase in CO2.

"where are these graphs showing co2 spiking before temperatures? produce them. and who is debating one following the other?"

I will go dig up the articles on the CO2 causality debate, but if you look closely at the temp/CO2 graph you posted, you will see that the rise and falls in temps does not always mesh with the rise and fall in CO2. It's tough to get an exact reading off that chart cause the scale is so large, but it's there. If we were to impose the last 100 years onto that chart, you wouldn't even be able to make out the lines it's such a small time frame compared to the time the graph covers. Plus, by your own graph we are overdue for an ice age that will last over 100,000 years.

"no action or the precautionary principle is suicidal......as huge and scary of a problem that was it doesnt hold a candle to global warming."

Gee, that's not an alarmist statement.

"you might want to sit on your hands waiting for more information beyaond what has the rest of the world convinced but thankfully not everyone thinks that way."

What Scooter said.

"there isnt anything odd about belief in science. science is about probabilities, not absolutes. you believe a theory to be true based on the evidence which differs from religion only in the nature of the evidence."

I agree with this, let me elaborate. When I said "All those people you say "believe" (which is a funny term when talking scientific issues) " I wasn't being clear, my bad. What I mean by this is the beleif that some of the average people have. Uninformed, completely media manipulated opinions, which turn into a religious fervor. That's bad, mkay (Mr. Mackie's voice, South Park)

 

[Dingo44]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15420258#post15420258 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by surfreef
Green is the new red.

You mean red as in those soviet communists? Mikhail Gorbachev founded Green cross international and is a member of the Club of Rome, and Club of Madrid, all while living in San Francisco. There just might be something to that, maybe Hippie smell can chime in with his conspirator mind of his!

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15420019#post15420019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nihoa

Had you put that statement in the context of the rest of the conversation and everything else he has said, you would have understood what he meant.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15419862#post15419862 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nihoa

where are these graphs showing co2 spiking before temperatures? produce them. and who is debating one following the other?

Actually, I think there is about a 600 year difference between the CO2 and the temp trends. I don't remember now where I found that tidbit, but I'll try to dig it up. At this point, take that with a grain of salt until I can find it.

Scott