The New Global Warming Thread

[AMosely]

Another good reference from realclimate.org (that I'd bookmarked but neglected to post):

"When asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get."

In 1988, NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen gave a controversial presentation to congress on climate change during a blazingly hot summer in Washington DC. To some, this marked the beginning of the 'wake up' to the concept of global warming. To others, it marked the beginning of an anti-global warming campaign. Today, nearly 20 years later, how successful were his early models (he outlined three different ones, or 'scenarios' A, B, and C)?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...8-projections/

[Switch]

You do realize that CO2 is released into the air every time you take a breath, right? Similarly for every other animal life form on the planet, plus lots of types of bacteria and other life forms.

You act like cars are the only source of CO2 in our atmosphere. You also act like our planet does not have equilibrium-mechanisms that control the levels of CO2 in the air. Volcanic eruptions, for example, put out vastly higher quantities of many different pollutants, including CO2, than we do, and yet the ecosystem absorbs them and then returns to equilibrium.

Naturally produced CO2 is countered by photosynthesis. We've been successfully cutting down rain forest for a long while. We're putting a dent in the natural compensation. Luckily, a majority of the O2 that is returned to the air comes from the oceans and algae. I'm not sure what shape thats in --- perhaps warming ocean temps will increase the yield, thats just speculation though. Anywho, that natural system is being faced with far more CO2 than it otherwise normally deals with. And its doing so at a disadvantage with the reduction of forest cover.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl.../deforest.html

Volcanoes are acute events compared to the chronic long term burning we've been doing. Volcanoes have caused climate shift that has been visible for a short while after major eruptions.

Some people have been trained/educated on such things... biology/ecology majors anyone? Kero, whats your field of study?

Carbon Dioxide Sinks:
Oceans are a major CO2 sink, containing about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. Terrestrial biomass including trees and grasses store about three times more CO2 than the atmosphere. Together, oceans and terrestrial ecosystems absorb perhaps half the excess CO2 generated by human activities. The rest enters the atmosphere increasing its level of this gas. One group of scientists expressed their belief, "...natural sinks (oceansd and land) can potentially slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, (but) there is no natural savior waiting to assimilate all the antrhopogenic CO2 in the coming century."

[Morganan]

Could someone care to counter the information given in this documentary?

(the length is about 1 hour 15 minutes, please watch the whole thing before commenting)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...78442170&hl=en

[AMosely]

Could someone care to counter the information given in this documentary?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...78442170&hl=en

We're sorry, but this video may not be available.

(and it isn't)

[Lucky Shot]

Couldn't watch it either.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Some people have been trained/educated on such things... biology/ecology majors anyone? Kero, whats your field of study?

I study everything.

Haven't graduated yet. I'm still learning about all sorts of things. Biology and Ecology are just two of many.

So how about you? What do you study?

[Nikolas]

Let's leave the ad hominem out of this, please.

[Lucky Shot]

Doesn't Hansen receive "grants" from Al Gore (he does)? So how is his opinion worth more then a meterologist who's job centers around predicting weather? They get paid to accurately predict the weather. I do enjoy reading your speculation that he receives money (from somewhere).

As far as the other study here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
It doesn't bother to list the solar equation into the study listing it as a constant which it isn't. Furthermore, global temperature readings can be corrupted by many things including moving the weather stations, which happens frequently. Secondly, many weather stations are identified in Urban Heat Islands whereas I can drive an hour west on a day like today and drop 10 degrees.

Bjerne Anderson, a professor at the Niels Bohr Institute argues that there is no such thing as a "Global Temperature" because of the earth's atmosphere is not a homogeneous system.

It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.

The last piece is that Global Temperature can be changed just by using different ways to average it. It can be figured using a Mean, Geometric Mean, Mod, Median and then you can go into even more complicated methods. Changing from one method to another can dramatically alter the results.

All the standard arguments for global warming rely upon conventional "equilibrium" models of the atmosphere, all of which may be false.

Lucky Shot

[Steeler]

I don't suppose we could settle on the definition of global warming as, "Certain parts of the world that we would like to remain at certain temperatures to maintain our civilized lifestyles are getting warmer than we're comfortable with."

[Morganan]

Apparently the video in it's entirety has been pulled due to it's rights having been bought by ABC Australia for airing.

You can watch it in 8 parts from this link, just page down through the different parts.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ming%20swindle

The wiki about the documentary can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Enjoy

[Kerostasis]

I don't suppose we could settle on the definition of global warming as, "Certain parts of the world that we would like to remain at certain temperatures to maintain our civilized lifestyles are getting warmer than we're comfortable with."

That would be a fine definition, but it doesn't come packaged with the same useful conclusions that the standard definition of global warming has. For example, if our new definition of Global Warming allows for warming in some areas while cooling continues in others, how do we know CO2 concentrations have anything to do with it? How do you blame manmade activities for destroying the world's ecosystem, if warming is only localized? I mean, that definition doesn't even let you blame man for killing off the Polar Bears! So ultimately, any attempt to use a definition like that will last only long enough to pull a bait-and-switch back to the original definition.

[Steeler]

Global influences on a closed system are often expressed first as localized changes. There is nothing logically or scientifically unsound in that premise. It is, of course, the responsibility of the claimant to prove the deductive case that individual events point to a causative whole.

Boy, my diction gets more polysyllabic the less sleep I have. You could even say that they are inversely proportional. Whee!

[AMosely]

Doesn't Hansen receive "grants" from Al Gore (he does)? So how is his opinion worth more then a meterologist who's job centers around predicting weather? They get paid to accurately predict the weather. I do enjoy reading your speculation that he receives money (from somewhere).

Point taken, and a valid comparison. My point regarding him receiving money is that it was an article about a paid speaker, paid to present their viewpoint. That's a clear sign of bias. To the same degree, I would agree with someone claiming that Hansen is biased, especially if one were to cite one of his public speaking engagements. The difference to me, though, is that Hansen is biased by his own research, and that counts for something.

As far as the other study here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
It doesn't bother to list the solar equation into the study listing it as a constant which it isn't. Furthermore, global temperature readings can be corrupted by many things including moving the weather stations, which happens frequently. Secondly, many weather stations are identified in Urban Heat Islands whereas I can drive an hour west on a day like today and drop 10 degrees. Bjerne Anderson, a professor at the Niels Bohr Institute argues that there is no such thing as a "Global Temperature" because of the earth's atmosphere is not a homogeneous system. The last piece is that Global Temperature can be changed just by using different ways to average it. It can be figured using a Mean, Geometric Mean, Mod, Median and then you can go into even more complicated methods. Changing from one method to another can dramatically alter the results.

Almost every scientific theory, hypothesis and model can be nitpicked. For every model of success there is a nearly identical model for failure. The 2-percent genetic difference between man and ape seems far more significant than two-percent, yet the facts dictate otherwise.

I don't claim to be an expert on these matters, nor do I believe anyone here at TG is. I've said time and time again that my personal belief is that we are the stewards of the Earth. Who are we to determine how much is too much, or how far is too far? I tend to try and take the least arrogant path in matters dealing with the Earth. This planet existed long before our species did, and will almost certainly last longer. Who are we to think we are more important than it? The human race is doing things that alter the health of the planet, sometimes in seemingly insignificant yet profound ways - again, think of the genetics of ape and man - 98% similar, yet profoundly different. I believe this to be a similar case. We are arrogant to assume that our perception of minor dents in the Earth's atmosphere could not possibly have a meaningful effect. They have, they are, and they will until our species collectively discovers that we do not, in fact, come first.

I actually enjoy debating the philosophical aspects of this debate more than the scientific ones. For some reason I feel that they are more tangible - and relevant.

[AMosely]

The wiki about the documentary can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Enjoy

I haven't watched the video, but I have seen more than enough examples of members of the media (Martin Durkin is a television producer, not a scientist) overblowing this issue in both directions. And yes - former Vice Presidents do it too. Again, not interested (no, I have not seen 'An Inconvenient Truth').

I am satisfied reading IPCC reports, academic journals and the blogs of climatologists.

[Morganan]

One of the purposes of the video is to show the corruption of the IPCC reports and how the data doesn't match up to the conclusions. Please watch the video and then draw conclusions about it's material.