What's wrong with a bit of global warming?

[esbo]

It's seems to be the accepted thing that global warming is bad, but is it such a bad thing? The dinosaurs certaintly prefered a more warmer climate.

Look at the facts:-

1. The ice caps are melting - so what?
What we lose on the south pole we gain on the north pole, we might lose a few tiny islands in the pacific, but whole swathes of frozen land around the northern tundra will will become habitable and farmable, not to mention more oil which wil become accessable.

2. The earth will become warmer.

Is that a bad thing??? Lets face it, 90% of people when they get a chance to go on holiday, chose to do so in a warmer climate, you don't see too many flocking to the poles do you?

People are just frightened of change, and always think it will be a bad thing, but there is not a great of evidence that the good aspects of change will outweigh the bad aspects of change.

One major aspect of global warming is that we will need to burn less of our precious and limited resourse of fossil fuels, you would think people would be jumping for joy at the prospect of global warming yet we seem to be dreading it like the plague.

A futher huge bonus, I would imagine, is that the extra CO2 would aid crop growth to feed our population, much of which is on the brink of starvation. Yes you might expect some climate change, some of which would be 'good' and some of which would be 'bad', but it is just a question of adapting to the new enviroment.
For every drought there is a flood, that has always been the case.

There may well be evidence for global warming (and quite a few people question that anyway), but I am not sure if there is scientific evidence that that is a bad thing.

You rarely hear people complain it is too warm do you? It's usually the cold people complain about.

Yes there may be a few regions that become like the Sahara, but a lot of other regions would be able to plant two crops a year, and the most likely region to become like the Sahara, is, well the Sahara, so no great loss there then.

I remember when I was at school the big fear was the next ice age, you would think people would be jumping for joy now!!!!

[Algr]

Yea, we didn't really need all those costal cities anyway.

[wolram]

I have no idea if the planet is going to warm up or cool down, but this video shows what
(could) happen if the Earth warms by 4 to 6 degrees

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/six-degrees-could-change-the-world-part-2/3861060568

Let it load for a minute or two.

[Mech_Engineer]

Well the question has been raised in the past-

Who are we to decide the climate we currently live in is the ideal climate for all humans and animals (present and future) and it should be kept this way at all costs?

[esbo]

I have no idea if the planet is going to warm up or cool down, but this video shows what
(could) happen if the Earth warms by 4 to 6 degrees

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/six-degrees-could-change-the-world-part-2/3861060568

Let it load for a minute or two.

Quite frankly that is just being alarmist.
Some of the claims made laughable.
The Ganges drying up??? The Ganges is dependant of the shape of the planet, it is not
going to disappear fact.

There is no scientific balance in the video, no comparisons of lands lost and lands gained.

It's alarmist rubbish quite frankly it is a hollywood type production with a man with an incredibly deep voice to try and make it sound authentic.

Man has constantly coped admirably with climate change, with a lot less knowledge and
knowhow than we have now.

Guess what? I used to live inside a Glacier? So how is Glaciers melting a bad thing???????

Do you miss the lost city of Atlantis? I don't.

And just think of the billion of tonnes of fossil fuels we would save?

We would not even have to have wars over oil. We would halve our energy consumption
at a stroke.

Notice it immediately jumps into it's sales pitch at the end, selling magazines seems to take
priority over scientific balance, and like newspapers, they know alarmist nonsense sells very well.

[mgb_phys]

(Breaking my rule of never getting involved in enviroment arguements.)
It's better to think of it as climate change. Even though on average the planet will warm some areas will get colder - like western Europe if the gulf stream turns off, some places will get a lot wetter, some a lot drier.

For the planet it's really not a big deal - it's just a bit inconvenient for people who have chosen to build cities in certain locations.

And of course it's not all doom and gloom - a local housing development here in Vancouver is claiming it will be necessary to cope with the massive influx of refugees when sea levels rise 2m. An imaginative reason to build some more high-rise condos!

[esbo]

The odd flooded city is no problem, we have plenty of time to build new ones, and plenty of
unemployed people to build them, it really is no big deal, cities come and go.
I lot of our cities would benefit enourmously from being demolished and rebuilt.

Also underwater cities are fantastic for marine life.

[NerfMonkey]

Your comment about Atlantis is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. Anyway, ignoring that...

To be honest, I'd rather not have my house destroyed and be forced to move elsewhere. I'd also like to still be able to go on vacation in South Carolina.

In case you didn't know, rebuilding cities costs MONEY. The government can't just pull money out of its ass and use it for whatever it wants to; otherwise my parents wouldn't have just lost $20k out of my college fund, would they?

[esbo]

Modern building are not expensive to construct and the process can be done on a gradual
phased basis, allowing no new building in threatened area. Cities are constantly being reconstructed anyway, there is little in my city over 100 years old, and what there is of such an age is inapppropiate for modern life. It is actually much cheaper to build on a green
field site. If you are taling of costs then the cost of preventing global warming will be enormous when compared to the cost of the gradual migration of a few threatened cities.
Only a tiny fraction of the worlds cites would be affected anyway, it's not worth loosing sleep over. look how many cites WWII leveled.

I don't see how your parents losing you college fund money comes into this, how did they
manage that? Are you blaming the loss on global warming or something?

[russ_watters]

People are just frightened of change, and always think it will be a bad thing, but there is not a great of evidence that the good aspects of change will outweigh the bad aspects of change. As far as the overall habitability of earth goes, it may well be an open question, but 'fear' of change is close, but not quite right. Change really is painful in some cases, as implied in the sarcastic post #2.

[esbo]

As far as the overall habitability of earth goes, it may well be an open question, but 'fear' of change is close, but not quite right. Change really is painful in some cases, as implied in the sarcastic post #2.

You are forgetting that accepting change can be a lot less painful than trying to
prevent it. If CO2 causes global warming there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway,
just slow the rate down.

[NerfMonkey]

I don't see how your parents losing you college fund money comes into this, how did they manage that? Are you blaming the loss on global warming or something?

Read my post. I made no connection between that and global warming.

I don't know which would be more expensive: moving a few dozen million people and rebuilding their homes and businesses somewhere else, or trying to slow down or prevent the effects of global warming. I just think it would be really impractical to try to make all those people move to a new area and build new cities, and it doesn't seem like something the government or people would be ready to do.

[DaveC426913]

Who are we to decide the climate we currently live in is the ideal climate for all humans and animals (present and future) and it should be kept this way at all costs?

Here is a two-parter take on this.

1] There is a growing belief that
a] the world's wildlife will ultimately depend on mankind's treatment of it. Climate is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. (A more obvious way of seeing our effect is in how we pave, pollute or otherwise erode - their habitats physically).

b] we will have the power - and that cause us to believe we should be responsible for what happens to it. However it end up, it will be because we either actively made it or passively let it become that way. Species will go extinct unless we act. ()

Now, so far I've only established how we will be affecting it, not why we should affect it any particluar direction.

2] And the why is simply that we make the decision that we want to preserve it.

There is an elegant term for it that escapes me, but we effectively decide to be Conscientious Sheperds of the Earth.

[W3pcq]

I agree on the standpoint of someone not involved in world crisis. It does seam, that global warming wouldn't be a big deal. Before their were borders and such things, people would just move, or farm somewhere else. The real problems are partly due to the globalization, domestication, and overpopulation of planet earth.

The planet in real time, now, is experiencing challenges because of climate change. Farmers own their land, and cannot just move north, or south and plant. All the available land is owned, and changes in the weather patterns offset the balance of power, mess up projected production, and cause starvation. Also, places like australia aren't getting enough rain.

From a naturalist perspective, this is natures way of working, this is how evolution takes place. From the perspective of others, there are statistics that show many people suffering and many to suffer in the future. What's new, nothing; just you daily struggle to survive.

On the other hand, I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of unnaturally changing the composition of our atmosphere to this kind of level. What are you going to do about it though?

[DaveC426913]

From a naturalist perspective, this is natures way of working, this is how evolution takes place.It is.

But of people are deciding they don't want to win the evolutionary race at the cost of much of the rest of the planet losing.

[esbo]

Read my post. I made no connection between that and global warming.

I don't know which would be more expensive: moving a few dozen million people and rebuilding their homes and businesses somewhere else, or trying to slow down or prevent the effects of global warming. I just think it would be really impractical to try to make all those people move to a new area and build new cities, and it doesn't seem like something the government or people would be ready to do.

Getting people to move would not be much of a problem, most of them do not have the
correct breathing apperatus to breathe underwater.
The areas affected would be relatively small and the changes very gradual, it really could
be done with the minimum of cost and disruption. Also there would be great savings to be
made from these new well planned cities, in terms of transportation etc...
You would simply gradually stop maintaining the lowest lying areas and use the money
saved to begin the building of new cities. I have seen great swathes of my city
rebuilt over the years so only a small percentage of the new bluilding would be be at
an extra cost, and indeed it is *much* more expensive to reuild then to start from
a greenfield site.
Indeed I expect that China alone is building cites at a much faster rate than would be
required to keep up with sea level rises. Indeed it is bulding two power stations every
week, thats 100 a year. Now if that is 1 power station per city thats 100 new cities
a year I would imagine. Or in 100 years 10,000 new cities.
Those figures may be inaccurate but clearly rebuilding a few cities is 'no big deal'.

Given the astronomical, and futile cost of trying to stop global warming it is the sensible
thing to do.

This is a little out of date
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200008/14/eng20000814_48177.html
but china plans to build 400 cities in 20 years.

[Algr]

Man has constantly coped admirably with climate change,

For example, look how well the Roman Empire dealt with it. Or Easter Island.

If you are taling of costs then the cost of preventing global warming will be enormous when compared to the cost of the gradual migration of a few threatened cities.

So we'd just put New York in Quebec, Havana in Mississippi, and Jerusalem in Ukraine. Do you really think this would be easier then building a bunch of solar cells and windmills? We are not talking about "a few threatened areas", it's every city in the world that has a sea port.

Name one time in history that you had massive migrations of population without resulting wars.

[Mk]

For example, look how well the Roman Empire dealt with it. Or Easter Island.
How was climate change responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire and destruction of Easter Island's society?

[esbo]

For example, look how well the Roman Empire dealt with it. Or Easter Island.



So we'd just put New York in Quebec, Havana in Mississippi, and Jerusalem in Ukraine. Do you really think this would be easier then building a bunch of solar cells and windmills? We are not talking about "a few threatened areas", it's every city in the world that has a sea port.

Name one time in history that you had massive migrations of population without resulting wars.

You don't need to put New York in Quebec, you can put in in Ohio or whatever, so no
need for a war, people emigrate/migrate all the time.

[Algr]

Colder temperatures in the Roman empire had three results:

1) Reduced crop harvests. This made food expensive, forced more people to work the land, and reduced tax yields that had maintained the empire. (Solders, roads, education, ect.)

2) Germanic barbarians migrated into the south, seeking food and less harsh lands. The Romans attempted to integrate them into their society, (often replacing the lost solders, at lower pay.) but this was unstable, and the barbarians often revolted or became raiders. This activity inhibited long distance trade within the empire, further lowering living standards and tax yields.

3) Plague. Crops, animals, and people were all weakened by the colder climate, making them more susceptible to disease. Cities routinely had to close their ports to resist plague, and the remaining soldiers who might have protected the trade routes were themselves feared as plague carriers.

Without trade or military control, the empire became meaningless - there was no reason for cities to support it, and thus (western) Rome collapsed.

Of course whole books have been written about the fall of Rome, and their are a thousand factors and theories I've left out, but climate clearly set the stage for all else.

===========

Easter Island is much simpler. They cut down all the trees on the island, turning it from forest to grassland. Without wood, they were stranded on the island (no more boats) and their society collapsed.


people emigrate/migrate all the time.

Not whole cities worth of people! Look at Israel. Look at the US reaction to Mexican immigrants. Even if sea levels rise slowly, cities will not just give up and move - they will try to fight the water until things suddenly collapse as happened in New Orleans. Then there will be shockwaves of refugees fleeing one city after another. Even if the US avoids war, the rest of the world won't, and we will get dragged into it because we depend on the rest of the world for so much.

[russ_watters]

You are forgetting that accepting change can be a lot less painful than trying to
prevent it. If CO2 causes global warming there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway,
just slow the rate down.
The difference in severity if we slow it vs doing nothing is a big difference and makes your first point there invalid.

Ie, accepting a 10 F rise in temp and planning for it might be less painful than not doing anything now and having to deal with it later, but fighting it and getting a 5F rise would be less painful than either.

And, of course, there is nothing to say that we can't fight it and plan for it at the same time.

[Algr]

but fighting it and getting a 5F rise would be less painful than either.

And don't forget this isn't just about cities. We would have to redesign every ecosystem in the world and face massive ecological catastrophe for every one we get wrong. Look what a few missing bees could do to our ability to feed ourselves.

[vanesch]

Of course whole books have been written about the fall of Rome, and their are a thousand factors and theories I've left out, but climate clearly set the stage for all else.


That said, what was wrong with the fall of the Roman Empire ?

[Phy6explorer]

The Ganges drying up??? The Ganges is dependant of the shape of the planet, it is not going to disappear fact.

The Ganges is perrineal and is watered by the Gangotri Glacier and if the glacier dries up why wouldn't it dry up? Moreover global warming is due to extreme emission of greenhouse gases and this leads to extreme increase af CO2.There is already a thread in PF mentioning that rise in the CO2 levels leads to decrease in the O2 level.Moreover it is we who are going to get most affected due to global warming.The USA and many other highly developing countries already have a huge hole in the ozone layer hovering over it, and this lets the most harmful radiations emitted from the sun, including the Infra -Red rays which upon research has been found to cause skin cancer upon contact with the human skin. Global warming will also lead to the extinction of a huge number of species in the South Pole whose homes are in ice and it must be remembered that the oceans are the ultimate controllers of the temperature of the globe.Imagine the condition if the ocean itself gets heated up.It has already been confirmed that the minimum rise in global temperature every year is by 1 degree celsius.Then, imagine the temperature after 50 years.We are not realising the seriousness of global warming right now,but we will, only after we experience the wrath of global warming and climate change.

[latecommer]

It is very egocentric to even think that we can stop a climate change. It really doesn't matter what people decide to do. The only thing we can do about climate change is adapt to it.
The entire idea of AGW and the tiny impact of human produced CO2 relative to the natural production of this benificial gas by nature is not science.
One can make a better case for CO2 causing a cooling of the atmosphere based on absorbtion/emission gas laws. Since each molecule attempts to achieve balance, the absorbtion of energy will be equally emitted and in a 360 degree manner. Thus slightly more than half of the energy will be directed upward and eventually radiated out of the atmosphere.
I admit that this is unproven by empirical evidence, but so is the idea of warming in the real world atmosphere.
We are however acting as if it is a proven law of science when we move to change the worlds industrial/economic status based on this.
In this case, in my opinion, the cure is much worse than the problem.
It IS a fact that worldwide , 10 times as many people die from the cold as from the heat. In all ways it is far easier to adapt to heat than to cold.
Our time and money should be spent preparing for either evcentuallity not chasing geese as per AGW.
As a Paleo-geologist I know of no timer in Earths history, save in the recovery from a glaciation when water levels have risen at uncontrolable rates. We have had a very small steady rise in sea level for thousands of years, and there is no reason outside of alarmism to suggest that this balance will change.
With many astro-physicists and solar scientists now suggesting that the sun is entering a quiet period, the odds of a climate minimum are much better than runaway heating. Lets do the prudent thing and prepare for colder temperatures. With carbon based fuel resources being finite, we need to move on to better forms of heating, and we are doing little in that direction.

[latecommer]

phy6
Can you site the proof for me that warming is caused by extreme emission of greenhouse gas? Of course GHG is a necessary factor in life on Earth....without it we would live on a very harsh world, but in our geological past we have had much higher greenhouse gas levels even during the heart of major glaciation periods.
I fear you are buying an unproven and unprovable hypothesis, and rejecting the primary source of energy that has always been the source of all our heating and cooling.
The Sun is known to have been in a very energetic state for the last couple of hundred years, and is now showing signs of cycling back to a quieter stage. This is not hypothesis this is empirical observation. As the sun goes so goes the climate. This is the way it always has worked, in high and low levels of GHG.
We are living in a time where CO2 levels are near all time lows in the atmosphere when the entire record of the Earth is taken into account. Why the fear? I suggest it is because of ulterior motives by those pushing the non-science of AGW. Some are seeking power, Some have gone to far down the road reputation wise to turn around, and yet others, perhaps the majority, seek to stop the burning of fossile fuels and will makeup and exort any reason in the spirit of "the ends justifying the means". None of that is science....its politics.
Nature has very efficient ways of coping with changes in green house gases, ie. more heat creates more water vapor, more water vapor creates more precipitation, more precipitatiopn creates more cooling......and more co2 creates more terrestrial plant and plankton growth which absorbs more CO2.

We have and will continue to cope with the millimeter scale of ocean level change. Any talk of sudden changes is alarmism and unworthy of a scientist.

[Phrak]

Name one time in history that you had massive migrations of population without resulting wars.

Two. Baku, and the ongoing invasion of the united states by mexico.

[DaveC426913]

Name one time in history that you had massive migrations of population without resulting wars.Every year here in Toronto before the Gay Pride Parade...

[latecommer]

phy6explorer
So you have any science background? Your last post makes me doubt it. I try to never be disrespectful but some of the things in your last post are so wrong I wonder at your level of expertice. for instance you speak of the numbers of species in the Antarctic as hugh. Im sorry but there just isn't a lorge number on that continent.
You speak of conformation of 1 degree C heat rise per year, and there is not nor has their ever been anything of the sort. The ozone "hole" you speak of is a natural loss of a percentage of polar ozone during the times of 24 hour Sun. It is not a hole but a small thinning. There is to my knowledge no hole over North America. UV rays are what destroy Ozone.
The Ganges is fed primarily by seasonal rains, and only parially, and the smaller part by glaciers which grow and shrink on a cyclical basis.
I'm sorry but I, for one, can't take anything you say seriously.

[DaveC426913]

...I try to never be disrespectful but some of the things in your last post are so wrong I wonder at your level of expertice
....
UV rays are what destroy Ozone....


Are you suggesting that UV is the only factor? That rising global temperatures and greenhouse gases have no significant effect on the ozone layer?

...cuz I get the feeling you're the pot and he's the kettle.

[Andre]

Is there a reason to get things in the personal attack sphere? Indeed most of the claims of phy6explorers last post are extravagant. But also, he has not substantiated them, which -I believe- is a definite no-no in this forum. Why was this not challenged/corrected and why is the poster who observes this under attack?

[DaveC426913]

...and why is the poster who observes this under attack?Ad hominem. He chose to attack the arguer not the argument.

[vanesch]

Andre is right here on the account that several statements by phy6explorer are obviously wrong (1 degree per year etc...).
However latecommer's statements are also rather strong and not backed up. So I propose that both of you cool down, refrain from being on the verge of ad hominem attacks and bring the discussion back to reasonable statements and discussions.

[Phy6explorer]

You speak of conformation of 1 degree C heat rise per year, and there is not nor has their ever been anything of the sort. The ozone "hole" you speak of is a natural loss of a percentage of polar ozone during the times of 24 hour Sun. It is not a hole but a small thinning. There is to my knowledge no hole over North America. UV rays are what destroy Ozone.
The Ganges is fed primarily by seasonal rains, and only parially, and the smaller part by glaciers which grow and shrink on a cyclical basis.

Hey Guys, first of all I would like to make it clear that I was in not offended nor was I insulted in anyawy by latecommer. So please do not report or anything.I would like this healthy discussion to continue.

I would like you(Latecommer) to read the stuff in the following links.

To prove rise in global surface temperature:-

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

To prove that there ARE ozone holes:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Ozone_depletion

A UN Climate Report issued in 2007 indicates that the Himalayan glaciers that feed the Ganges may disappear by 2030, after which the river's flow would be a seasonal occurrence resulting from monsoons.- Source Wikipedia and of course, UN

Of course, after reading more I found that I am wrong about the 1 degree thing. I apologise to suggest something like that but I assure all of you that I did not make it up, but I have obviously come to know about it in an un-reliable source and I shall not repport any information which I read there.But there is a considerable rise in global surface temperature.

[Andre]

Well, I think that it would be wise, not to question anybodies intentions when discussing these things other than to get at the truth. Wikipedia should not be considered as a reliable authoritive source as it is the -not peer reviewed- opinion of the author.

About ozone, it's supposed to emerge under UV light, and is dependent on the temperature. it is unstable therefore it's genesis and decay is in dynamic equilibrium depending on the circumstances There is no "hole" over industrial counties but over the poles, especially during the winter, simply due to the lack of sun shine and hence UV light. As the stratosphere is currently cooling, the production of ozone is decreasing.

The cause of this cooling is not fully clear, it is attributed to greenhouse effect but the calculations don't add up.

Furthermore, melting glaciers, stronger hurricanes or not, droughts or floodings, rising sea levels and what have you are not proof of global warming, it's proof of chaotically changing conditions. Moreover if the temperature changes, it's not proof of an anthropogenic cause, since global temperature has changed for about 3.56 billion years.

See for the lastest temperatures against the main prediction of the IPCC: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1715538#post1715538

[Phy6explorer]

Furthermore, melting glaciers, stronger hurricanes or not, droughts or floodings, rising sea levels and what have you are not proof of global warming, it's proof of chaotically changing conditions.

Just to enquire, isn't chaotically changing climate due to global warming????

[Andre]

Well to put things a bit in perspective, you might like taking some time to take note of this:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

This is how the Summary for policy makers would have been written by many of the contributing scientists:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

See also:

http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf

[DaveC426913]

Just to enquire, isn't chaotically changing climate due to global warming????
No. Chaos is the natural order of weather and climate. This is what many (most) climatic Chicken Littles don't get.

BTW, chaos is a specific term with a specific meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory).

[Algr]

It is very egocentric to even think that we can stop a climate change.

It is very egocentric to think that we can have six+ billion humans on the planet consuming resources and not have to deal with the consequences.

Nature has a way of restoring balance to life. It's a four step program called famine, pestilence, war, and death. Call me egocentric, but I think humanity can do better then this.

[Andre]

It is very egocentric to think that we can have six+ billion humans on the planet consuming resources and not have to deal with the consequences.

Nature has a way of restoring balance to life. It's a four step program called famine, pestilence, war, and death. Call me egocentric, but I think humanity can do better then this.

I don't understand the logic. Could you please explain what that has to do with mankinds ability to alter climate or not?

[Algr]

Overpopulation is not something that humans invented, it is literally older then breathing. So is the natural response to when an organism grows beyond it's environment's ability to support it. If a species has no predators, it will grow in population until it exhausts it's food supply. Then the population will crash to far below what could have been maintained had other controls been in place - sometimes leading to total extinction.

Humans are in no way exempt. On Easter Island, humans took what was once a forest, and turned it permanently into a grassland that could support far fewer people. The idea that we could respond to this with "well, maybe we'll all move to other cities" is just denial. If we can't stop climate change, then most of humanity is doomed. Why give up on the starting line?

[latecommer]

Again there is a logical disconnect. Warmer means better if you are considering food supply, and especially when compared to cold and the need to burn far more fossile fuels.
Still there is no proven way that humans effect climate at present and while I agree it would be nice to set the earth's climate like we do a thermostat, there is no way to do that at present.
One thing that has no bearing on climate change is CO2. Only the removal of all co2 could effect the climate...... to the colder. Additional CO2 will not make it appreciably warmer due to its logrithmic effect on IR absorbtion.
Its ability to absorb energy has reached a limit where doubling has less than 7 hundreth of a degree C effect.
I agree that nature will balance out our population when we reach beyond our ability to support ourselves, but I strongly disagree that "most of humanity" is doomed. There is no magic tipping point that would start an irreversable extinction. Why would we sink much below the level of maximum supportable population? As resources deminish so will population, unless replacement technology takes it's place. We will then stabilze at a sustainable level. Unless external forces, such as astroid type events take place, there is no "doom" in sight.

[latecommer]

Phy6,
I am happy that you took no offense because none was meant. Teh one degree thing threw me a bit because that was obviously wrong.
I, like Andre, do not use Wikipidea as a source, because I have seen submitted materials that counter the moderator of that site's opinion removed. It is very clearly a reflection of the site owners personal views and in many ways unscientific. What confuses people is that they think some sort of "equlity' of all views is represented. It is not.

I have opened Andre's suggested sites and learned from them...I hope you will do the same.

Vanesch

Would you please point out statements I made that I di not back up? I would like the opportunity to do so.

[latecommer]

Phy6
When you speak of "holes" in the ozone layer you must be careful. It is really an inaccurate way of saying a thinning of some degree of the ozone. It is a very loaded term that implies to the uniformed a total lack of ozone. Indeed a real lack of ozone (a real hole) would have very unpleasent effects, but a thinning would bring on effects only of it's degree of thinning.
Do you not agree?
Words must mean something if we expect to pass our thoughts on to others. Use of inaccurate or loaded words is counter to that.
If I may, I suggest that you look at the works of William Kininmonth. I consider him one of the clearest thinkers and writers on these subjects, and on others related to climate.

[latecommer]

An interesting paper by Timo Niroma:

For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Niroma, he is highly respected Finnish climatologist who has been linking solar activity with temperature in a series of many papers.
His latest is done on the weather station located in Uppsala, Finland. This is a site with data going back at least to 1739.
He postulates that there has been a steady but uneven rise in temperature since the end of the last glaciation (accepted by most climatologists)
He has done a study of temperature trends from this data and published his analysis as "Are there any signs of global warming in Uppsala tempertures in 1739 -1999?"
The exact time of the end of the Maunder minimum is debateable, but he chooses 1739 and attempts to justify that date in this paper. He breaks down the temperature trends in smaller units as follows:

1739 -1801
The regression is 4.92 + 0.0063
which is a rise of 0.063 degrees C per decade, or 0.63 degrees per century

1801 -1816 (Dalton Minimum)

regression is 5.00 - 0.034
which is a fall of 0.34 degrees C per decade, or 3.4 degrees per century

1816 - 1867

regression is 5.30 - 0.011
which is a fall of 0.11 degrees per decade or 1.1 degree per century

1867 -1930 (period of greatest rise after the Maunder Minimum)

regression is 4.47 + 0.011
which is a rise of 0.11 degrees per decade or 1.1degrees per century

1930 - 1999 (warming trend only one quarter of what is was in the previous 63 year period)
regression is 5.36 + 0.0029
which is a rise of 0.029 degrees per decade or 0.29 degrees per century.

The three warmest sub sets in this data were, in order: (1) 1930's, (2) 1990's, and (3)1770's
It appears to be difficult to correlate this with CO2 measurements which have been steadly rising in recent years.

However, it does correlate well with sunspot activity (a common proxie for solar activity) with a rise of 1.0 Wolfs per decade across this time period.
The breakdown includes a rise in solar activity 1930 -1999 of 3.4 wolfs per decade.

Dr. Niroma notes elsewhere that the Sun has recently been in one of its most active stages since the end of the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age), but appears to be decreasing in the last decade. He like many other climatologists warns of a potential cooling due to recent reduced solar activity.

[vanesch]

Vanesch

Would you please point out statements I made that I di not back up? I would like the opportunity to do so.

Well, others here know that I also think that the IPCC makes statements of which the scientific certainty is actually below the claimed certainty, but when you say:


I fear you are buying an unproven and unprovable hypothesis, and rejecting the primary source of energy that has always been the source of all our heating and cooling.


then that's unproven too. We don't know whether the ONLY parameter affecting earth's climate is the sun, which is what you claim here ; in fact, there are many indications that atmospheric composition DOES play a role (and not only as a feedback variable).

Also, although you correctly indicate the weak point in the AGW hypothesis, namely the "vapor and cloud reaction", what you advance:

Nature has very efficient ways of coping with changes in green house gases, ie. more heat creates more water vapor, more water vapor creates more precipitation, more precipitatiopn creates more cooling......and more co2 creates more terrestrial plant and plankton growth which absorbs more CO2.


is not necessarily true either: in fact, one doesn't know the exact vapor and cloud reaction to heating, which is the main "feedback" mechanism, which can just as well be positive as negative. Precipitation btw doesn't create cooling. What creates cooling is cloud formation, up to a certain extend, and as far as I understand, this is one of the most un-understood aspects.

I think that the honest situation is that we don't know what the increased CO2 content of the atmosphere will do. It could very well lead to a global warming (but this is less "logically inevitable" as the IPCC claims IMO), it could do something else, and the intensity of the potential change is probably difficult to assess.

In as much as being cock-sure like the IPCC is probably not entirely scientific, being cock-sure of the opposite is just as un-scientific.

[Andre]

In as much as being cock-sure like the IPCC is probably not entirely scientific, being cock-sure of the opposite is just as un-scientific.

How c.. -sure are we that aether does not exist, or phlogiston? Isn't science all about eliminating options that proved to be wrong? The IPCC has done predictions of which we are witnessing how (in)-correct those are. Model predicted radiation fingerprints were proven wrong with factual data (see Miskolsczi's greenhouse thread). How many black swans are required to face that the all-swans-are-white hypothesis (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=814116) is false?

[latecommer]

Your point is well taken Vanesch, but if you re-read you will see I did not use an exclusive in terming the Sun as the "primary" driver of climate. I believe that it is..... beyond doubt ,since nearly all our energy originates in the Sun.
Even the IPCC accepts this with the caveat that what has always been the case (the Sun as driver) is not now the case.
I believe the IPCC did a good job considering it's mandate was based on the (fact) that human emissions are the cause of global warming. But they, or anyone else have failed to prove that this foundational fact is true. They have taken it as a given, and unless or until they can put some proof behind that statement the rest of what they say is pure opinion, and not even close to science.
To put their unproven hypothesis on the same level as time tested ideas of the Sun as driver is wrong. As Andre implied, a hypothesis is proposed, tested by empirical evidence, and, if falsified.... is dismissed. With the billions of dollars spent and the hundreds if not thousands of scientists working to prove this hypothesis coming up with a very large NIL, I consider it dismissed.
I can agree with you that we still don't know exactly how climate is driven, but I think the premise that it is human caused is pretty much bankrupt. I am unaware of any (even a small) piece of proof empirically observed that indicates CO2 or any other human based activity has an influence on the climate greater than the noise of natural variation.
On to more promising theories.

I don't agree with you that heating can create less water vapor. As far as I know there are no physics which support this idea. As heating occures in water more vapor is released....
The models used by the IPCC, as you probably know, do not take into account cloud cover or its causes. There are quite strong hypothesis being tested at CERN based around the increase in galactic influence caused by a diminishing Sun on the atmosphere. If this proves true, it may well be one more leg of the two legged stool knocked out from under the modelers at IPCC.
I suspect you have read the Report (No.4) and you will have found, as I did, that claims made by the true believers are far more radical than by the scientists who wrote the report. I believe that is partly the responsibility of those that wrote the summery for policy makers..... a group primarily made up by political apointees and not scientists. They knew , I believe, how they had to hype the subject to create the desired results.
Some, today, go even beyond that to the increadulous.

[Evo]

An interesting paper by Timo Niroma:

For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Niroma, he is highly respected Finnish climatologist who has been linking solar activity with temperature in a series of many papers.
His latest is done on the weather station located in Uppsala, Finland. This is a site with data going back at least to 1739.
He postulates that there has been a steady but uneven rise in temperature since the end of the last glaciation (accepted by most climatologists)
He has done a study of temperature trends from this data and published his analysis as "Are there any signs of global warming in Uppsala tempertures in 1739 -1999?"
The exact time of the end of the Maunder minimum is debateable, but he chooses 1739 and attempts to justify that date in this paper. He breaks down the temperature trends in smaller units as follows:Please furnish the link to this paper. When referring to research or an article, you must provide a link to this information so that others can read the paper in it's entirety.

[latecommer]

Sorry

As I have it:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm

hope this works for you

[vanesch]

How c.. -sure are we that aether does not exist, or phlogiston? Isn't science all about eliminating options that proved to be wrong? The IPCC has done predictions of which we are witnessing how (in)-correct those are. Model predicted radiation fingerprints were proven wrong with factual data (see Miskolsczi's greenhouse thread).

Yes, and now models are proposed that correct for this. I agree that post-false-prediction-corrections-to-make-them-fit is often the beginning of the end, but the *actual* prediction, which is that upon CO2 doubling, we will get between what is it, 1.5 and 6 degrees average global warming in about 100 years, has not been falsified yet, for the simple reason that we haven't been waiting yet for 100 years.
In complex modeling, it can happen that the finer details are wrong. This can indicate that the whole thing is misguided. It can also indicate that the general idea is right, but that the finer details are not understood.

I still take it as not entirely proven beyond reasonable doubt that a significant CO2 change is totally neutral concerning temperatures in 100 years from now.

[Andre]

Yes, and now models are proposed that correct for this. I agree that post-false-prediction-corrections-to-make-them-fit is often the beginning of the end,

Now where did I read that before? Ah George Orwell, 1984 (http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-1984quotes.htm):

Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; ..."

but the *actual* prediction, which is that upon CO2 doubling, we will get between what is it, 1.5 and 6 degrees average global warming in about 100 years, has not been falsified yet, for the simple reason that we haven't been waiting yet for 100 years.

Do we need to? An actual last prediction is 0.2 degrees per decade. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1715538) but how would that compare to the graph attached to that post? How about the start of the very first decade?


In complex modeling, it can happen that the finer details are wrong. This can indicate that the whole thing is misguided. It can also indicate that the general idea is right, but that the finer details are not understood.

Could it be that the general idea is wrong? Urging to look into the Miskolczi thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818) once more. The general idea about absorbtion of long wave Infra Red by greenhouse gasses heating the atmosphere is well known but until now real time data seem not to be supporting it, according to Rizzi et al 2002 (http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/Publications/LBL_EX.pdf).

But there is also Douglass et al 2007 (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf) and Monaghan et al 2008 (http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/2007GL032630.pdf) struggling with model ideas and refractory reality. So the question is, if the outcome of your calculations does not match the solutions in the back of your algebra book, are your assumptions and calculations correct?

[vanesch]

Could it be that the general idea is wrong? Urging to look into the Miskolczi thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818) once more.

In as much as I understand this (gave it only a diagonal look), the claim is that the radiation transport problem in 1 dimension is erroneously solved as of today ? I couldn't quickly figure out if this was some nitpicking about the best suited ideal boundary conditions of the radiation transport problem, or a fundamental mistake that people make today. I would think - but I know that this can be wrong - that such an elementary error would have been already spotted since quite some time, no ? After all, radiation transport in 1 dimension is not an insurmountably difficult problem !

[vanesch]

Do we need to? An actual last prediction is 0.2 degrees per decade. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1715538) but how would that compare to the graph attached to that post? How about the start of the very first decade?


It is not impossible that a long-term trend is invisible for shorter time lapses simply because several oscillatory phenomena superpose upon it. I will be the first to agree with you that current modeling is far from perfect, and is way too much oversold. But in order to prove to me that no serious heating (or cooling for that matter) is happening when the CO2 contents doubles, you would JUST AS WELL need to provide me with detailed models that show me that the effect is NOT there. So as long as we don't have extremely reliable climate models, we cannot claim either way with certainty. I repeat, it was surely an error by the IPCC and the fearmongerers to say that there was any form of scientific certainty about AGW. But that fact by itself is in no way an argument that proves the "no" answer.

In other words, to the question: "a doubling of CO2, will it affect seriously the global climate ?", it would need a serious scientific effort and progress before an affirmative answer can be given with any form of certainty. But it would take just as much effort to give a negative answer to that question. It is not because a certain attempt at answering prematurely "yes" to the question failed, that this is a proof that it is "no".

What is falsified by current observations is only the *specific models* that the IPCC claimed were very sure and on which they based their "certainty" for the prediction of AGW. But it is not because this particular argumentation has been falsified that AGW by itself, independent of any modeling and claims, has been definitively shown absent either.

[Andre]

In as much as I understand this (gave it only a diagonal look), the claim is that the radiation transport problem in 1 dimension is erroneously solved as of today ? I couldn't quickly figure out if this was some nitpicking about the best suited ideal boundary conditions of the radiation transport problem, or a fundamental mistake that people make today. I would think - but I know that this can be wrong - that such an elementary error would have been already spotted since quite some time, no ? After all, radiation transport in 1 dimension is not an insurmountably difficult problem !

Well perhaps this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=220771) and this thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174215) are worth another look, especially the last post of Charles, which seems to make some sense.

[Andre]

....
In other words, to the question: "a doubling of CO2, will it affect seriously the global climate ?", it would need a serious scientific effort and progress before an affirmative answer can be given with any form of certainty. But it would take just as much effort to give a negative answer to that question. It is not because a certain attempt at answering prematurely "yes" to the question failed, that this is a proof that it is "no".
...

I don't know, are we moving the goal poles out of the realm of the scientific method? What is "affect seriously the global climate"? For instance, it may be recalled that the warmest period in the Holocene was termed "Holocene Thermal Optimum" (http://www.google.de/search?hl=en&q=holocene+thermal+optimum&btnG=Google+search), and by no means "Holocene Thermal Disaster", when the trees grew on the Arctic coasts of Siberia (McDonald et al 2000 (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf)). Why would we think that a warmer climate would be disastrous in the first place? But anyway.

As far as I recall, the IPCC calls for a 1.5-6 degrees global temperature increase for doubling CO2, while the (MODTRAN HITRAN) models (see former post) get to about a dry one degree per doubling. The difference is explained by positive feedback. As stated previously Rizzi et al 2002, Douglass et al 2007 and Monaghan et al 2008 cannot produce results based on the models, but there is also a problem with that positive feedback (Kärner 2002 (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf), Kärner 2005 (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf), Kärner 2007 (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/E-Ac-Sci-07.pdf) and this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192)).

Finally Miskolczi, using empirical evidence gets himself an idea that is close to zero degrees for doubling CO2, which would might make sense IMO if the emission of the absorbed IR is instantaneous without "exchanging heat" with other molecules, then a maximum of half of the IR emission would be refected and half would escape to space, basically independent of the concentration of the greenhouse gas.

So what is it? And would any temperature change due to greenhouse effect be hazardous, indifferent or benificial to the climate?

Apparantly 20 years after the Hansen alert and umpty billion$ later, we are again at the basic questions.

[vanesch]

I d
As far as I recall, the IPCC calls for a 1.5-6 degrees global temperature increase for doubling CO2, while the (MODTRAN HITRAN) models (see former post) get to about a dry one degree per doubling. The difference is explained by positive feedback. As stated previously Rizzi et al 2002, Douglass et al 2007 and Monaghan et al 2008 cannot produce results based on the models, but there is also a problem with that positive feedback (Kärner 2002 (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf), Kärner 2005 (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf), Kärner 2007 (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/E-Ac-Sci-07.pdf) and this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192)).


Again, that only means that we haven't yet a correct modeling (and maybe that our empirical observations are also not totally clean, I don't know). And if we don't have a correct modeling, we can't know what will happen, or even if something will happen. But that doesn't mean that we are now sure that nothing will happen. In order to be able to be sure about that, we would need to have a working model that shows us that nothing is going to happen, and we don't have that either.


So what is it? And would any temperature change due to greenhouse effect be hazardous, indifferent or benificial to the climate?


By definition, any human-induced change is hazardous, and any natural change is beneficial according to the currently political correct thinking. :rolleyes:


Apparantly 20 years after the Hansen alert and umpty billion$ later, we are again at the basic questions.

Right. And it will probably still take several decades before we will find out a bit more, as we are talking about very slow processes. Now, if we could shake a bit the CO2 atmospheric content (making it rise, then making it fall etc...) we might probably find out better what is its exact function. But it is a world-wide experiment that will last for more than a century and will cost a lot of money.

[Andre]

Again, that only means that we haven't yet a correct modeling (and maybe that our empirical observations are also not totally clean, I don't know).

Well, isn't that called error margin? An wasn't there something about reproduceability? If several research teams, using several methods but getting consistent results, wouldn't that generate some confidence?

And if we don't have a correct modeling, we can't know what will happen, or even if something will happen. But that doesn't mean that we are now sure that nothing will happen. In order to be able to be sure about that, we would need to have a working model that shows us that nothing is going to happen, and we don't have that either.

Is this still about greenhouse effect? Will there be ever models that can predict what will happen? But I guess, you're thinking about ice age climate in the past (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm) having done quite spectacular things, which looked so easy to be solved with the greenhouse effect. Point here is that the reconstruction of that climate is a multitude of affirming-the-consequent fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html), (not a reproach, there is simply no other way). But when things don't add up, some of those hypotheses are definitely wrong. The North Siberian Mammoth at the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-4S563X9-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2008&_alid=743566400&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6995&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=2&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f01eff708f7c0b7ec2c7f31cb8e4e107) for instance is a major token of things not adding up. There is something very wrong out there. There is no way of modelling anything if you don't have the finger behind that.

By definition, any human-induced change is hazardous, and any natural change is beneficial according to the currently political correct thinking. :rolleyes:

Nice challenge, is there anything benificial that only mankind could have done for nature? How about recovering all those fossil biomasses for burning, increasing the available carbon for the short carbon cycles and hence increasing the total biomass?

And it will probably still take several decades before we will find out a bit more, as we are talking about very slow processes. Now, if we could shake a bit the CO2 atmospheric content (making it rise, then making it fall etc...) we might probably find out better what is its exact function. But it is a world-wide experiment that will last for more than a century and will cost a lot of money.

Therefore perhaps it's better to sit back, make inventory and tick off the symptoms of scientific crisis as proposed by Thomas Kuhn (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html). If it all matches, perhaps we should face reality and start from scratch, challenging all basic ideas.

[latecommer]

The solid evidence of temperature lag relative to CO2 at all time scales (as indicated by Gerlich/Tscheuschner, Jaworowski, Idso, Beck, and others). Indicates to me that even up and down movements of CO2 levels will be very difficult to analyse no matter how caused.
I would think that long term observations could best contribute to a solution of this question.

[vanesch]

Therefore perhaps it's better to sit back, make inventory and tick off the symptoms of scientific crisis as proposed by Thomas Kuhn (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html). If it all matches, perhaps we should face reality and start from scratch, challenging all basic ideas.

Isn't it more a symptom of oversold science than of a scientific crisis ? If you make 20 guesses as hypotheses, put all that in some model, and turn the crank, should you really be surprised that some things don't fit ? But again, it is not because a model that makes two predictions and one of it is falsified, that this means that the other prediction is wrong too. What is correct, is that the *argument* for that other prediction now has a problem. But not necessarily the outcome.

Let's take a silly example: my theory is "if it is hot, it is bigger". I see that this works with an iron bar. I see that it works with water. So I make the prediction: summer days are hot, so they are longer than winter days. But then people show me wrong. They find hot stars that are smaller than cooler stars. They find hot girls that are smaller than cool girls... etc...

So my modeling that was based upon "if it is hot, it is bigger" has been falsified. A more careful analysis shows me that my theory only works for material objects, not for things such as days or girls. Also, I should compare identical material structures, and the only difference should be temperature. And even then it doesn't always work (some materials shrink upon heating). In other words, my theory that predicted "in summer, days are longer than in winter" is totally erroneous.

But that doesn't stop summer days to be *actually* longer than winter days. It is not because the theory that led to that prediction has been falsified that, as a fact, it became wrong too.

So it is not because some models of the IPCC are falsified in some of their predictions, and in some of their starting hypotheses, that the actual prediction of AGW itself is going to be false.

[Andre]

Or it was on purpose or you have no idea how dead on that example is. Bigger (as in heavier) is not necesarely hotter. Exactly!! We're talking the bigger water isotopes now (dD and d18O). More later.

[Algr]

What is "affect seriously the global climate"? For instance, it may be recalled that the warmest period in the Holocene was termed "Holocene Thermal Optimum" (http://www.google.de/search?hl=en&q=holocene+thermal+optimum&btnG=Google+search), and by no means "Holocene Thermal Disaster", when the trees grew on the Arctic coasts of Siberia (McDonald et al 2000 (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf)). Why would we think that a warmer climate would be disastrous in the first place? But anyway.

Get in your car, go to the expressway, and drive 60 mph. It's great to have transportation, isn't it? Now stand in front of a moving train, and have IT accelerate you to 60 mph instantly. Is that Optimum or Disaster?

Natural climate change happens over tens of thousands of years, giving biology time to adapt. CO2 in the atmosphere has shot up like a rocket this century - it's a rate of change unlike anything the Earth has ever experienced. How fast do you think those arctic trees can move?

And as for CO2's effects, why do you think that Venus is so much hotter then Mercury?

[TR345]

Someone told me, (not sure if I believe them, please correct if you can) that volcanos have had greater impacts on CO2 levels in the past than we can make. Is this true.

I am guessing that some of them may release more in a small chunk of time compared to fossil fuels, but that we continuously burn carbon while volcanos are periodical.

[Andre]

Isn't it more a symptom of oversold science than of a scientific crisis ? If you make 20 guesses as hypotheses, put all that in some model, and turn the crank, should you really be surprised that some things don't fit ? But again, it is not because a model that makes two predictions and one of it is falsified, that this means that the other prediction is wrong too. What is correct, is that the *argument* for that other prediction now has a problem. But not necessarily the outcome.

In a nutshell, remember that the theoretical increase in temp for doubling value for CO2 is around one degree celsius. No more, the reason that the IPCC expect ~2-4 is the perception of paleo temperatures during the Pleistocene having allegedly fluctuated 10 degrees sometimes as quickly as within a decade (Dansgaard Oeschger events). Why? Because of 'water' isotope ratios in the ice cores (Willi Dansgaard 1952) (http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/about_centre/history/). So here is the vital affirming-the-consequent fallacy: if it's warm, the isotopes are heavy, the isotopes are heavy, hence it is warm. ( "if it is hot, it is bigger".) Again this is the main basis of the IPCC assumption as well as for the complete geology - paleo climatology. See Alley 2000 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html)

Now suppose that we were to discover that isotopes can be heavy without it being warm and that the well known isotope cycles in the ice core have a different cause. Also,
given the evidence for negative feedback from the Karner publications cited earlier, then there is no reason whatsoever to assume the enhanced sensitivity >1 C/2xCO2. Would that generate a Kuhn-type scientific crisis? It's not that fundamental physical laws have to be changed, it's just about erroneous interpretations.

And of course if Miskolczi is on the right track despite his error about the total energy of the atmosphere, and the real sensitivity is even a lot less, then some other theories are down the drain too.

[latecommer]

Vanesch

I can agree with the logic you follow when you say that proving a modal wrong does not prove the assumption wrong, But if you will, can you lay out the evidence that the assumption has merit?
As far as I am aware there has been very little if any confirmation of this basic assumption (human caused change to the atmosphere)

I believe it is accepted by nearly all that we have liberated a portion of the carbon cycle embedded in fossile fuels, and a measure of that has entered the atmoshpere.

Where the disagreement centers is.... does this effect anything significantly?

So my concern is this: 1. What is the influence? 2. Is this influence, if any can be quantified, detrimental?
And why, if we can't difinitively answer these questions, are we embarking on global programs that have the potential of being a cure worse than the disease.

This is, IMO, the result of the overhyped "science" being sold to the public by and through their governments..... an attempt to appear as if someone is doing something (so typical of our leaders)

[DrClapeyron]

Why melting ice caps are bad?

It would open up mineral exploration in the north pole, causing a new cold war era to usher in between russia and the usa. This will lead to a new space race but this time dominated by asthmatic nerdlings at NASA instead of the jarheadjocks of yor, the russians end up sending men to mars before we can decide whether global warming is real or not.