The New Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY

So, you know that guy doesn't have an anti-global warming position, right? Just because he questions some of the findings of the IPCC doesn't mean he is on your side.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html

It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock.

[Kerostasis]

What do you mean "my side"? The only side I'm on is "rationality over paranoia", and I think Schwarz is definately on that same side.

The study linked basically came to the conclusion that the earth assumes equilibrium temperature extremely fast, on the order of about 5 years. Extremely simplified models I've worked on myself support a similarly short time frame. But the dire warnings of catastrophic change generally rely on the idea that equilibrium temperature lags decades behind emissions, suggesting that global warming may have already advanced far beyond the point we measure today and resulting in estimates of warming of 2 to 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The short equilbrium time drops that estimate to a mere one degree, of which half a degree was 1930 - 2000 and the other half a degree is 2000 to 2070 or so. That is anything but catastrophic.

These figures will not be part of the next IPCC report. They are not paranoid enough. They will not be posted on livescience either. But we can discuss them here.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

What do you mean "my side"? The only side I'm on is "rationality over paranoia", and I think Schwarz is definately on that same side.

First, his study I do believe says the numbers from the IPCC might be wrong, and that it is worth looking into. However, that is one study by one person. Why is he so right, even before anyone has responded? Why is it easier for you to accept the findings of one person than thousands? Rationally, I trust the overwhelming amount evidence presented by every single trustworthy academic and media source; paranoia seems to have people like you grasping for anything that makes you feel better, and as soon as you can find one tiny shred of evidence to support your dated, politically bias opinion on global warming, you believe it without question.

Second, Shwartz's recent lectures include: "The Greenhouse Effect and Your Family's Contribution to it", "Climate Change: A Defining Issue for Our Age", "Chilling Considerations about Global Warming", and "Climate and climate change: Scientific background for informed decision-making". In fact all of his recent lectures are about global warming. If you'll browse his website you can see all of that. So if someone or something gave you the impression that the author of that study did not fully believe in the threat and reality of man-made global warming, they were obviously incorrect. His own study obviously didn't change anything in his mind about the reality of global warming. This man is a global warming activist, who you are trying to represent as someone who doesn't believe in it!

[GlobalWarmin]

Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming
http://www.livescience.com/environme...americans.html

The role of scientists and media is not to be forgotten in affecting public opinion, Krosnick said. Good scientists always leave room for potential mistakes and doubt when reporting their work, but communicating their natural uncertainty can cause reservation in the public mind.

“When we ask people, 'Do you think scientific experts that study the climate mostly agree that the climate is heating up or do you think that there is a lot of disagreement,' 64 percent of Americans said that there is disagreement in the scientific community,” Krosnick said.

This false belief, Krosnick explained, seems to be tied to the efforts of the news media to tell a balanced story.

Global Warming Critic for Hire
http://www.livescience.com/environme...al_critic.html

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group, said: "This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda.''

Donald Kennedy, an environmental scientist who is former president of Stanford University and current editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Science, said skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers.

The History of Climate Change Science
http://www.livescience.com/environme...e_history.html

1981

Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement; political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming.

Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming.

Some scientists predict greenhouse warming “signal” should be visible by about the year 2000.

[xTYBALTx]

It's the certainty that sets off alarm bells in my mind, not scientific uncertainty.

I can't speak for the rest of Americans though, at least not as well as livescience.com can.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

This man is a global warming activist, who you are trying to represent as someone who doesn't believe in it!

I'm not representing him as anything. I was just relaying the results of his study, which you seem deadset on ignoring. If it's not on "livescience.com", apparently it doesn't count for you. And you call me biased? If you want to start panicking over a half a degree of temperature change, that's your right I suppose, but when you start trying to use that as justification to put more taxes on ME then I draw the line.

Then you go and quote another rediculous article from livescience about why Americans are skeptical. That argument holds no water at all. You can't blame the media for "reporting both sides of the issue" because they don't do that anyway. For example, read the FIRST SENTENCE of the article you quote. It establishes quite clearly that this website grants no consideration whatsoever to any opposing viewpoints. Most news sites don't. Some media outlets choose to listen to skeptics, while some choose to listen to alarmists, but almost nobody listens to both. The correct answer is that Americans believe there is disagreement in the scientific community becuase *gasp* there IS disagreement in the scientific community.

Edit: At GW's edit: You can quit quoting livescience now. We've already established they have a lack of credibility on the issue. You know there are other sources of information out there, right?

[AMosely]

I was recently reading a rather trivial but entertaining article in the New Yorker about a suspected forger of rare vintage wines. One method of forging a wine that tastes old is to blend newer vintages together, sometimes adding in other ingredients (such as brandy). One of the methods of detecting such forgeries is to try and date the wine itself. Traditionally this is done the same way as any other carbon-based artifact, using carbon-14 dating. However, since the advent of nuclear testing, all carbon-based entities on the planet have been exposed to the radioactive isotope cesium 137, which, due to its short half-life (30 years), provides a much more accurate method of dating organic matter. Cesium 137 does not occur naturally, so it's a bit disturbing to think that it was spattered throughout the globe by our amazing species. But, that's not my point.

I came to the realization that it is impossible to determine humankind's role in climate change because we have always been having some kind of impact on the climate. There is no other Earth by which to measure our impact on this one. Unfortunately, this includes the debate over whether humans have had any effect on the climate at all. I would assume that everyone can agree that we've introduced many unnatural as well as additional naturally-occuring compounds into the air and environment of Earth. In the case of of naturally-occuring compounds, it is difficult to say precisely how much more of it we have contributed, and even more difficult - if not impossible - to determine what the true effects are versus a naturally occuring cycle.

To me, this is all the more reason to minimize my personal impact on the planet as much as possible, all the while realizing that I do create quite a footprint. To others, it may mean the opposite. Unfortunately, I believe the latter will always be able to offer the argument that there is no definitive proof. Well, setting their self-proclaimed ignorance of the fragility of the Earth aside, I admit that they do have a point.

[xTYBALTx]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is magic occurring right before our very eyes. We have just witnessed someone's opinion changing in the Sandbox. And not on a trivial issue, but on a subject which has been the matter of much debate (this is the second GW thread, remember).

Wow.

Your ultimate conclusion, that in the absence of evidence that a given action does not harm the planet one should abstain from that action, is up next, buddy! ;] Booooo to the precautionary principle!

[GlobalWarmin]

I addressed the results of that one study in many ways, including by doing a quick background check on the author, who I showed clearly still supports man-made global warming and the threats that it poses. So you might want to find another flawless scientific report to worship.

Imageinova (Livescienc.com) is only partners with: AOL, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, USA Today, Yahoo.com, AIAA, NSS, SETI, Space Foundation, and the United States GeoSpatial Intelligence Foundation. So how do you think they lack credibility? Find one science related Internet source with more partners.

http://www.imaginova.com/partners/

Show me another more credible source, or any that isn't clearly bias, that overwhelmingly supports an argument against man-made global warming, or natural warming? I have yet to see anything but random blogs and a few scientific reports, which fall comically short of overcoming the facts presented by the IPCC and the major scientific organizations of the entire world. Tell me where do you get all this "credible" information that opposes the IPCC with over 90% certainty? I doubt even FOX News carries that kind of information, after all, they are a partners with livescience.com.

So, is Scientific American credible enough for you?

August 14, 2007
Man to warm planet despite natural coolers

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ali...-planet-despit

This is only a brand new study by Britain's leading climate forecaster.

But while variations in sea temperature and even light-blocking volcanic ash could soften the impact of man's ongoing contamination of the planet in some areas, overall global warming is still inevitable.

[leejo]

I dunno. The more waste a process generates, the less efficient it is, and one very cool thing about a free market economy is that it constantly seeks better efficiency. For example, I spent $10k on a new air conditioner and heater for the house last weekend because we got a $450 electric bill the month before. It's a much more efficient unit than the one we replaced. I didn't make this purchase because I want to be able to put a bumper sticker on my car that says how nice I am to the planet, I did it because it's in my self-interest to add to the value of my house and lower my net monthly payments. I think this pattern exists throughout our economy.

The problem with government-mandated behavioral changes is it is so vulnerable to unintended consequences. Anyone who says the markets are too slow should ask themselves when they were last impressed with the blazing speed with which the government reacts to new information, or adopts new techniques? Seems to me the government has a long history of attempting to jam a round peg in a square hole (thing Sen Craig!) long after they should have changed their behavior.

I think it's possible to determine that current human activity, relative to assumptions about medieval human activity, is having an effect on the earth's temperature. I just don't think anyone has done a good job of making the connection and showing the causal relationship: it is not sufficient that one shows that gases generated by human activity correlate to an increase in temperature, you must also show that absent that activity the temperature would not have increased. Otherwise, we don't really have a plan of action, we have a series of guesses, any one of which may make the problem worse or do nothing at all other than cripple the global economy and plunge millions into poverty or starvation.

The next time you read that "many scientists" think something, ask yourself "WHAT scientists?" I bet I can get "many scientists" to say pretty much anything I want.

[Lucky Shot]

We could just solve it with more pirates.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Ladies and gentlemen, this is magic occurring right before our very eyes. We have just witnessed someone's opinion changing in the Sandbox. And not on a trivial issue, but on a subject which has been the matter of much debate (this is the second GW thread, remember).

Are you talking about my post? My opinion hasn't changed, only my outlook on convincing others. This is akin to my saying that because there is no proof of God, there is no God. Just as a lack of proof can be used to both deny and accept the existence of a divine creator, unfortunately the same logic applies to this debate on humankind's role in climate change. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. My opinion that human beings are a scourge on the Earth has not changed. Members of our species knowing and unknowingly pillage the planet (and even our own species) on a daily basis in the name of personal gain, greed or just plain laziness.

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Your ultimate conclusion, that in the absence of evidence that a given action does not harm the planet one should abstain from that action, is up next, buddy! ;] Booooo to the precautionary principle!

No, it's not up next, and hooray the precautionary principle - which would serve humankind better than most religions.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by AMosely

My opinion that human beings are a scourge on the Earth has not changed.

I assume you don't mean that you consider yourself a scourge and therefore wish to kill yourself, only that many other people aren't as good as you and should kill themselves or be killed if they don't change their behavior vis a vis Bambi? I do hope that nobody with your attitude ever gains control of our government.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by leejo

The next time you read that "many scientists" think something, ask yourself "WHAT scientists?" I bet I can get "many scientists" to say pretty much anything I want.

This is what I mean when I accuse global warming skeptics of being under informed.

Besides the 2500 top scientists and politicians in the world that are involved in the most comprehensive climate study ever, the world's largest scientific association also backs the claims about global warming.

"Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more."

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

Global warming isn't some new story. Had you been paying attention to the news your whole life, or even now, you'd have come across countless articles stating the names of major organizations that support global warming, referred to now just as "many scientists" on occasion, because the majority opinion has been confirmed for so long.

Furthermore, while you'll never be able to force the majority of scientists to say what you want, after all the nature of a scientists is someone who is seeking truth, but, what you could do is pay a few partisan dinosaurs to say whatever you want. Who would listen to a couple of scientists over the evidence provided for years and years by the world's best scientist though? Not a very rational person I must say.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Global warming isn't some new story.

You hit the nail on the head with that one! We were being told that we were destroying the environment and warming the planet all the way back in the 1920s. And...then the planet started cooling instead. So then we weren't causing global warming anymore.

For awhile we were causing global cooling instead, and we were all gonna starve in the next ice age within a few decades due to massive crop failure. And then...we weren't anymore.

So now we're back to destroying the planet through warming. There's always some people (witness Mosely) who will believe we are destroying the planet no matter what we do. Its a VERY old story. But just because the story is old doesn't mean it's true.