Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

Please elaborate on that.

It's called attacking the source.

http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
See ad hominem (circumstantial) under "attacking the person".

 

[Zardoz]

It's called attacking the source.

http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
See ad hominem (circumstantial) under "attacking the person".

Oh, okay.

You mean like this:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2092049&postcount=265

Still, considering that the "circumstance" in this case is that ExxonMobil is running an enormous disinformation campaign, and is paying organizations that are playing ball, it's understandable that one would want to point that out, ad hominem or not.

Do you feel that a person's or organization's motives should never be questioned or even brought up? Environmentalists are under constant savage attack for their motives. Seems like its only fair to point out things like oil industry donations to the skeptic organizations.

 

[Touring Mars]

David Bellamy? Meet the face of corporate evil:

Who would have thought it, that the well-respected and (dare I say it) much-loved, warm and cuddly David Bellamy himself, should turn out to be one of the UK's most prominent global warming deniers? But indeed he is... however, his skepticism has not gone unchallenged, in an article published in the Guardian last year, George Monbiot took Bellamy to task for basing his argument on unreliable and highly questionable sources... sadly, it looks like Bellamy hasn't done his home work, is being used by those with their own agendas, or at the very least, has made some pretty silly, rudimentary errors that undermine his credibility when it comes to the issue of global warming...

 

[Danoff]

Do you feel that a person's or organization's motives should never be questioned or even brought up? Environmentalists are under constant savage attack for their motives. Seems like its only fair to point out things like oil industry donations to the skeptic organizations.

It's touchy. You cannot successfully use motives to defeat an argument. If someone is wrong, you shouldn't need to go to their background to explain why, that's all.

 

[FoolKiller]

If we are worried about global warming let's take China's example and slow it down by burning more fossil fuels and creating enough smog to block solar radiation coming in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182326,00.html

 

[Zardoz]

The reality is getting harder and harder to deny:

Britain launches energy review in face of global warming

I also posted this in the oil crunch thread, because it applies to that little problem, as well.

 

[FoolKiller]

The reality is getting harder and harder to deny:

Britain launches energy review in face of global warming

I also posted this in the oil crunch thread, because it applies to that little problem, as well.

Well, I would say something about this but the environmental groups said it for me in this very article. I could give multiple quotes where they think it is all just for show and not anyone actually rying to do anything abpout global warming, but I will give the one that summarizes it all.

The government launched an urgent public consultation on future energy policy on Monday but was accused by green groups of using it to mask a decision already taken in secret to build new nuclear power plants.

In other words, they really aren't worried. They just want nuclear.

 

[Zardoz]

...In other words, they really aren't worried. They just want nuclear.

Oh, they're worried as hell, and they know they're going to have to build many nuke plants.

They have a tough road ahead of them. Resistance to nuclear power is very strong in the UK. That will change, of course, when the rolling brownouts and blackouts begin.

But its not like they're going to have a choice. We aren't either. Hundreds of nuclear power plants will be built over the next thirty or forty years.

 

[Famine]

Resistance to nuclear power is very strong in the UK.

It is?

 

[Zardoz]

It is?

That's the impression I get. Am I wrong? I saw an unscientific poll a couple of days ago that came out 91% against.

What's your take on it?

 

[Famine]

No-one I know is against nuclear power.

Most of them don't even care where the electricity comes from, as long as the little white switches make magic happen.

 

[Zardoz]

Poll results on nuclear power in the UK:

Britons split on N-power advance

Polls like this will yield very different results in a few years.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

It seems to me that the current available evidence is pointing in the direction of human activity rather than a natural cycle. That is the problem with evidence. No one single piece of evidence is of value in and of itself. Only with the slow and steady accumulation of mutually supporting evidence does one start to get a clearer picture of reality. The problem we are faced with is really a question of how to interpret the evidence we do have, and then we need to make a judgement call based on the strength of that evidence, whilst accumulating more evidence as we go along. But in the absence of conclusive evidence either for or against GW caused by human activity, it would be sheer folly to disregard the trends...

The cost of being wrong about this issue is potentially catastrophic. If those who believe that the current evidence points to global warming by human activity are wrong, but industrial emissions are cut anyway, then the consequences will not be any worse than they were going to be... no-one loses, apart from big businesses who are doing most of the polluting. But if it turns out that they are right, and the evidence (as it stands now) is ignored or (more likely) not judged to be substantial enough to justify action, then we are all in big trouble... (well, our grandkids will be anyway...) My point is, we can, in my view, only benefit by cutting emissions, so why not do it anyway?

Absolutely TM! Scientific evidence seems to always lean on probability theory with sufficiently large & complex datasets. The message, whichever way it is cut, is that we most be doing something tremendously practical about perceived tonnages at this time, whether we are correct in curbing emissions inc which ones is irrelevant as long as the awareness and momentum are in place. Whether or not people cop on to the fact that hydrogen is a woefull fuel for small transport but an amazing installation and local power-gen facility that could inc greenhousing ( the architectural sort ), the server biodome fuel market.

ime sorta w/ FK, we should put all our chicken parts in the pressure kiln to makea teh gravy !

 

[FoolKiller]

ime sorta w/ FK, we should put all our chicken parts in the pressure kiln to makea teh gravy !

If they make it work right it will be like having a composte heap for oil. 👍

 

[niky]

We should just turn all our sewage systems into bacterial kilns and churn out tons of methane for fuel. With all the (pardon my French) **** humanity creates in one year, we could fuel ourselves forever.

Fight the coming ice age! Pollute!

 

[Zardoz]

We can only imagine what future historians are going to say about this administration:

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

"After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued..."

They were careful to only apply the pressure via phone, so no paper trail would be left.

This nation is being "led" by a pack of punks...

 

[Kylehnat]

Knowing the competency of the Bush administration, that phone was tapped by the NSA, and the tapes will be leaked to the public in a week or two

 

[Zardoz]

Sounds like that old coot Doc Lovelock got some people's attention:

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change

You'll recall that "Gaia" Lovelock thinks we've already gone past the "tipping point". Seems doubtful, but he apparently has generated some thought on the possibility of it.

 

[niky]

There is always a question on what constitutes irreperable change. For all we know, the climate engine is more variable than we may think. We live in a strangely stable period, post ice-age, that could collapse into an ice age at any time... or the apparent warming could be partially natural.

Of course, movement of global temperature in either direction may be bad for some part of humanity.

 

[Zardoz]

Seems to be a pattern developing here. More and more stuff like this:

Curbing climate change 'unlikely'

"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."

One collection of scientific papers sets out the impacts associated with various levels of temperature increase.

"Above a one degree Celsius increase, risks increase significantly, often rapidly for vulnerable ecosystems and species," concludes Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research in Germany, who produced an overview of more than 70 studies of impacts on water resources, agriculture and wildlife.

"In the one to two degree range, risks across the board increase significantly, and at a regional level are often substantial," he writes.

"Above two degrees the risks increase very substantially, involving potentially large numbers of extinctions or even ecosystem collapses, major increases in hunger and water shortage risks as well as socio-economic damages, particularly in developing countries."

 

[FoolKiller]

Seems to be a pattern developing here. More and more stuff like this:

Curbing climate change 'unlikely'

"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."

One collection of scientific papers sets out the impacts associated with various levels of temperature increase.

"Above a one degree Celsius increase, risks increase significantly, often rapidly for vulnerable ecosystems and species," concludes Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research in Germany, who produced an overview of more than 70 studies of impacts on water resources, agriculture and wildlife.

"In the one to two degree range, risks across the board increase significantly, and at a regional level are often substantial," he writes.

"Above two degrees the risks increase very substantially, involving potentially large numbers of extinctions or even ecosystem collapses, major increases in hunger and water shortage risks as well as socio-economic damages, particularly in developing countries."

The scientists in this article say it will take up to 1000 years. I guess we won't be running out of fossil fuels and won't have made any technological advancements by then? These predictions assume a lot and, in my opinion, underestimate our future technological abilities. If we aren't doing something different in 1000 years then we are screwed based on population growth versus power supply alone. Forget global warming, if the assumptions of these guys are right then we won't even be able to produce enough power to support civilization as we know it.

 

[Zardoz]

The scientists in this article say it will take up to 1000 years.

Yeah, a thousand years for the seas to rise 21 feet:

This would have a major impact on sea levels globally, though it would take up to 1,000 years to see the full predicted rise of seven metres.

Above two degrees, says the report, the risks increase "very substantially", with "potentially large numbers of extinctions" and "major increases in hunger and water shortage risks... particularly in developing countries."


Global temps have already risen one degree C., and just about everybody seems to agree that adding only one more takes us into uncharted territory. Many think that is coming, no matter what we do now.

It's all about the "tipping points" and the "positive feedback" mechanisms. Once those are at work, we're reduced to spectating. The great fear is that there won't be anything we can do to stop it by then...

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, a thousand years for the seas to rise 21 feet:

This would have a major impact on sea levels globally, though it would take up to 1,000 years to see the full predicted rise of seven metres.

Above two degrees, says the report, the risks increase "very substantially", with "potentially large numbers of extinctions" and "major increases in hunger and water shortage risks... particularly in developing countries."


Global temps have already risen one degree C., and just about everybody seems to agree that adding only one more takes us into uncharted territory. Many think that is coming, no matter what we do now.

It's all about the "tipping points" and the "positive feedback" mechanisms. Once those are at work, we're reduced to spectating. The great fear is that there won't be anything we can do to stop it by then...

"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."

Maybe I am reading this wrong but it seems like they expect the tipping point to happen over a thousand years.

Also, I read it as they are referring to two degrees from now, or at least when the EU made their global warming prevention agreement. I know we haven't seen one degree in that short of a time.

 

[Zardoz]

Well, hell:

Climate scientists issue dire warning

"The Earth's temperature could rise under the impact of global warming to levels far higher than previously predicted, according to the United Nations' team of climate experts.

"A draft of the next influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will tell politicians that scientists are now unable to place a reliable upper limit on how quickly the atmosphere will warm as carbon dioxide levels increase. The report draws together research over the past five years and will be presented to national governments in April and made public next year. It raises the possibility of the Earth's temperature rising well above the ceiling quoted in earlier accounts.

"Such an outcome would have severe consequences, such as the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and disruption of the Gulf Stream ocean current."


Great. Things really may be even worse than the conventional wisdom has indicated it would be. Several studies have suggested this over the past few years, and apparently the next version of the IPCC report will elaborate on it.

I have a 15-year-old son. I don't like the prospect of what he may be facing in his lifetime.

_______________________________________

EDIT - Instant de-forestation, thanks to warmer temps:

Mild winters loose beetle on Canada’s forests

"Millions of acres of Canada's lush green forests are turning red in spasms of death. A voracious beetle, whose population has exploded with the warming climate, is killing more trees than wildfires or logging.

"The mountain pine beetle has infested an area three times the size of Maryland, devastating swaths of lodgepole pines and reshaping the future of the forest and the communities in it...

"Scientists with the Canadian Forest Service say the average temperature of winters here has risen by more than 4 degrees in the last century. 'That's not insignificant,' said Jim Snetsinger, British Columbia's chief forester. 'Global warming is happening. We have to start to account for it.'

"The result is a swarm of beetles that has grown exponentially in the past six years, flying from tree to tree. The advance is marked by broad swaths of rust-red forest, the color pines turn before they drop all their needles to become ghostly grey skeletons."

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

From the Gulf Stream interactive guide on the Guardian site about the underestimation of the climate's capture crisis; "Researchers have found that the current(gs) has slowed by 6 million tonnes per second over 12 years."
( presumably 12yrs being the timeframe of the study, guardian sources being quite firm )

 

[Zardoz]

Consensus grows on climate change

The global scientific body on climate change will report soon that only greenhouse gas emissions can explain freak weather patterns.

Simultaneous changes in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems, ocean acidification and wildlife migration are taking place.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had previously said gases such as CO2 were "probably" to blame.

Its latest draft report will be sent to world governments next month.

A source told the BBC: "The measurements from the natural world on all parts of the globe have been anomalous over the past decade.

"If a few were out of kilter we wouldn't be too worried, because the Earth changes naturally. But the fact that they are virtually all out of kilter makes us very concerned."

Edit:

North Pole Meets South Pole: Earth Is Melting at Both Ends

 

[Zardoz]

Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded

The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions.

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate".

 

[FoolKiller]

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

Blue=factual information.
Red=assumption based on the word "possibly."

That was a jump.


I thought that we were reducing emissions some (meaning not a lot but at least some). Is it just having no effect or is the China effect counter balancing any decrease done by the US and Europe?

 

[Zardoz]

..."possibly." That was a jump.

Just curious: What number would change your opinion? 400? 500?

 

[FoolKiller]

Just curious: What number would change your opinion? 400? 500?

It has nothing to do with the number. It has to do with the fact that by using the word "possibly" he admits to making an assumption without fact. Any scientist should know to never use words such as possibly in a conclusion. It is a big no-no that I learned in third grade when I learned about the scientific method.

He essentially says we know it is this big. It might be this big, but I can't prove it, thus we are changing the climate. Nevermind the fact that he made that assumption without even working on the experiment. It was performed by NOAA scientists in the US and he is the UK scientific advisor. The released test results only gave numbers, everything beyond that was added by him.

If I said that fossil records from 60 million years ago show many more tropical plants so any global warming is possibly just the climate fluctuating you would call me out on making a huge logical leap, which I would be.