The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GhostintheShell]

What's truly amazing is that this thread is still dragging on after what I would estimate is 2 years worth of debate.

All that having the weather stations near ashpalt/heat islands etc does is increase the measurement uncertainty by lowering the inherent accuracy of the apparatus and the data it is collecting, it doesn't provide a predictable shift in the data like you would hope for. Think of a "heat island" less like the type of systematic error that would show a data shift like an incorrect Ohm value with one of the thermistor's, and more like a giant heat sink that absorbs a massive amount of heat energy during the day, holds it and slowly releases it at night when the surrounding environment is actually much cooler. Not only are the readings higher during the day, but they are also held artificially much longer into the night. It's also much easier to heat something up in the sun due to the huge amount of energy that the sun produces than it is to cool it down in the absence of the sun at night.

I posted ~140 years worth of surface data in excel format back in the original thread. These 2500+ sources were from terrestrial, ocean based, and satellite data. The average global temperature was a near complete flatline.

We argued all these points before, plus the Vostok ice cores, accuracy of modern thermometry etc. blah blah blah to great lengths.

I do have some new and interesting thoughts to add to this, I'm reading a reasonably good book called "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" right now. It's so far very good and it talks about a really reasonable compromise between the (misplaced) environmental activism that would basically bankrupt the global economy for the next 100 years with little reward, and how we could much better direct our funds and efforts with much greater global general "good" while still working towards a cleaner planet. One of the main topics is the stupidity of the economics of Kyoto and what a futile waste of resources it is for us to undertake.

I'm not going to add a lot to this second or third iteration of the global warming debate. There's a good reason that we've had several of these threads locked...they started to sound like broken records with hardly anyone really paying much attention to what are in most cases the brilliant and passionate arguments that the serious contributors have brought to these discussions.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

http://www.livescience.com/environme...ctic-melt.html says:

"The Arctic is screaming,'' said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.

Woo! That's the guy I asked about Arctic comparisons who wouldn't take the soda.

I wonder what livescience.com offered him...

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

I love people

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

What's truly amazing is that this thread is still dragging on after what I would estimate is 2 years worth of debate.

This debate will only end when the Earth finally dies of unnatural causes.

[GhostintheShell]

Lol, good one...I think you really mean is when mother earth gets sick of our parasitic nature and decides to shake us off like so many fleas.

It is simple arrogance that leads us to believe that we are making any positive or negative difference to survival of Earth. The Earth will be here long after we perish and our cities crumble, literally dozens of major civilizations have come and gone and we are hard pressed to find any evidence that they even existed in most cases. This iteration will be no different.

Dust in the wind....

[GhostintheShell]

That link from live science is an unbelievable load of misinformation. 20 feet of sea level rise due to the Greenland ice sheet melting? Laughable. Perhaps in the absence of about a dozen mitigating factors that reduce that number to less than 12 inches, or about similar to the number we have seen over the last 100 years.

I guess that would complicate the story too much for their readers though.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

That link from live science is an unbelievable load of misinformation. 20 feet of sea level rise due to the Greenland ice sheet melting? Laughable. Perhaps in the absence of about a dozen mitigating factors that reduce that number to less than 12 inches, or about similar to the number we have seen over the last 100 years.

I guess that would complicate the story too much for their readers though.

That isn't just a "link from live science". It's one of many articles that detail the recent findings from November (published in Science journal I believe), which tell us that the ice melt in Greenland during 2007 was greater than what was predicted--not a good sign for someone who wants to be a global warming skeptic.

[GhostintheShell]

The problem with these types of "links" is that they are very quick to proclaim that every negative environmental condition is caused by global warming, while ignoring the other half of the facts that tell us that the condition has little to nothing to do with man made global warming.

In their 2007 report the UN predicted the ~12 inch number, which was even lower than previous IPCC predictions for water level increases of 2-6 feet that were given in the late 90's. 20+ feet are just more ridiculous "Al Gore" style predictions, if you took all the water in Greenland and dumped it into the worlds oceans all at once without any other factors it would be true that it would approximate about 24 feet. If Antarctica melted in the same manner the number could be predicted to approximately 186 feet of sea level rise. They also fail to mention that in 2007 two of the major glaciers in Greenland were again seen to be reverting to much lower rates of ice mass loss. But that news doesn't "sell the crisis" very well.

I would be willing to bet that in the next couple years we see those numbers lowered even more to just a few inches over the next century once factors like the growth of Antarctica are more accurately tracked and taken into consideration.

[GhostintheShell]

"But perhaps the most illustrative example of Al Gore’s problem with truth is when he stood before the entire nation during the 1996 televised Democratic National Convention and emotionally told of how in 1984 he held his sister’s hand as she died of lung cancer due to smoking. With a lump in his throat and a hoarse voice, Al Gore explained that this emotional moment caused him to “pour [his] heart and soul into the [anti-tobacco] cause.” It was a moving moment and he won accolades for his speech.

Only one problem, the story was not true. For the next four years after his sister’s death, Al Gore and his family continued to grow tobacco on the family farm. For the next six years, Gore maintained political relationships with the tobacco industry and accepted their large political contributions. In 1988 (four years after his sister’s death), when Gore hoped to win the Democratic nomination for President, he campaigned in the South as a pro-tobacco candidate, saying, “Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”

It is clear that Al Gore doesn’t have a track record for candor or truthfulness."

"One of Gore’s primary global warming allies, Dr. Steven Schneider, a climate researcher, shares Gore’s belief that it is okay to exaggerate some things and ignore inconvenient facts – an interesting theory for a scientist. Schneider said, “[Scientists] need to get broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” Al Gore and his friends have chosen to be effective at the expense of honesty.

Incidentally, Dr. Schneider was once an advocate of the global cooling scare. In 1978, he warned of a coming Ice Age. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences adopted this view, “There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years.” My how times have changed."

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...we see those numbers lowered even more to just a few inches over the next century once factors like the growth of Antarctica are more accurately tracked...

GhostintheShell, might I suggest you go back an read the whole thread? Some of the things you're saying shows you haven't done your homework.

bkelly

[GhostintheShell]

Haven't done my homework? I'm probably one of the most knowledgeable people here when it comes to global warming. I don't think that "you haven't done your homework" really adds much to either side of the discussion, now does it?

What is it that are you disputing? That Antarctica isn't growing? or do you think that we will see more than 12 inches of sea level increase over the next 100 years?

Here are some quick links I grabbed in the 2 minutes before I had to run out the door...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cl...G=Search&meta=

Do any of these numbers below add up to 22 feet? Is Greenland the only contributing factor or isn't it just a tad more complicated than "the sky is falling"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

20 feet of sea level rise due to the Greenland ice sheet melting? Laughable.

You did note that the 22 foot statistic was prefaced with " If it completely melted—something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades..." You agree with this number since you said, "...if you took all the water in Greenland and dumped it into the worlds oceans all at once without any other factors it would be true that it would approximate about 24 feet."

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...while ignoring the other half of the facts that tell us that the condition has little to nothing to do with man made global warming.

I would be very interested in these "other half of the facts". It would be great if you could provide them but I know that's a lot of footwork so how about a compromise? Provide me with just one fact to support the notion that the Earth is not warmer now than it was in the 20th century or that the warming is not caused by humans.

Note that pointing to a localized trend isn't evidence as the randomness of weather will create pockets of unusual temperature, both cold and hot. Also, disproving current global warming research isn't evidence that the Earth isn't getting warmer or that humans are not responsible.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...which was even lower than previous IPCC predictions for water level increases of 2-6 feet that were given in the late 90's.

Bull-patties. The IPCC never predicted a 6 foot seal level rise by 2100.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

They also fail to mention that in 2007 two of the major glaciers in Greenland were again seen to be reverting to much lower rates of ice mass loss.

You're speaking of Kangerdlugssuaq and Helheim, I assume. They were moving double their expected speed between 2004 and 2005 but then slowed in 2006, but still move at speeds well above normal twenty years ago. We don't know why either happened but it certainly wasn't due to cooling.

And the UN/IPCC did mention this. The 2007 summary for policy makers says, "Dynamical processes related to ice flow and not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude."

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...once factors like the growth of Antarctica are more accurately tracked and taken into consideration.

Growth of Antarctica was predicted by the IPCC in 2001 and is evidence for global warming. "For the Antarctic continent, the models tend to predict more snow in winter and summer. Although temperatures are forecast to increase by 0.5°C, there will be little impact on melt because they will remain well below freezing, except in limited coastal localities."

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Incidentally, Dr. Schneider was once an advocate of the global cooling scare. In 1978, he warned of a coming Ice Age.

No he wasn't. In fact he said said in 1977 that we didn't know enough to predict warming or cooling.

And before you cite a reference-less dead-end Frontiers of Freedom article you might want to learn a bit about the group and George Landrith.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I don't think that "you haven't done your homework" really adds much to either side of the discussion, now does it?

It would have saved me a lot of unnecessary footwork and I think you would be more likely to believe the answers had you found them yourself.

bkelly

[Gillespie]

The sun has about 5 billion years of life left until it collapses into a white dwarf. The Earth will have lost the ability to support an ecosystem long before that.

The death of Earth is predetermined. Earth will never lose the ability to support life thanks to anything we do (even cockroaches would survive a nuclear winter). A climate change will happen whether or not we contribute to it. Ice ages have happened before; they'll happen again. We'll eventually disappear, and some lesser form of life will gain dominance, just as we claimed the world from the dinosaurs.

Given that homo sapiens is an evolutionary dead end on the tree of life, what do you say that we all adopt a fatalistic attitude and realize that no matter what our species does... we're eventually going to disappear with nobody left to even realize we ever existed. Let's stop worrying about a planet that we can't possibly harm, or an ecosystem that will adapt to any changes we may or may not be forcing upon it.


Just my opinion, though. I know the debate will continue unabated in this thread.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Given that homo sapiens is an evolutionary dead end on the tree of life

Here's something you might find interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210212227.htm

[GhostintheShell]

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused as to when the burden of proof was transferred over from the scientists to the skeptics...now I'm supposed to prove that the theory of man made global warming is faulty?

Global warming is a distinct possibility, man made global warming is improbable in every possible aspect. The science is bad, really bad, but the sensationalism sure makes up for it and hey we can precipitate the crisis a bit since it's in the "greater good" of everyone right?

Btw, I think you would find we are both on the same side here in terms of "preserving the human race". It's just that we have different ideas of what problems are significant and which are avoidable, and thusly where the money should be spent to get the best bang for our dollar in the future. Kyoto is not it.