I'm not worried about Global Warming

[Blenton]

I'm worried what people will do to try to 'fix' Global Warming.

 

[ideasrule]

I'm worried what people will do to try to 'fix' Global Warming.

Like what? Turning off your lights? Buying more efficient appliances? Investing in wind and solar power generation? If you think that everybody concerned about global warming advocates drastic geo-engineering projects like fertilizing the ocean or spraying light-reflecting chemicals into the atmosphere, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[humanino]

What would prevent China or Russia to start geo-engineering and come back to the rest of the world "it's fixed, now everybody can still burn carbon as much as they please" ? It is interesting to me that, if I break a leg, the doctor does not tell me "don't take the stairs anymore". Understanding the root of a problem is only one aspect of the scientific approach. Why it would be logical not to even discuss the possibility of geo-engineering, considering the economic and political potential consequences, is just beyond my understanding. I think "nobody is concerned" would at least deserve a little bit of elaboration in the discussion before being dismissed that easily.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm worried what people will do to try to 'fix' Global Warming.

The thrust of concerns about CO2 emissions relate directly to the energy problem. We already know that much of the geopolitical arena, as well as many of our military concerns and expenditures, stem directly from issues of oil. Consider for example that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor primarily to protect its move into Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, executed to protect its oil interests.

Carter once authorized the use of tactical nuclear weapons to protect our oil interests in the Middle East.

Currently, we are losing approximately 1/2 trillion dollars a year to foreign oil suppliers. T. Boone Pickens, famed billionare and oil man, says that this represents what will be the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

With CO2 comes toxic pollution that drives up the cost of medical care.

Cities with higher air pollution have highest medical costs
WASHINGTON (AP) — Older Americans in the most polluted parts of the country are significantly more likely to need medical treatment, particularly for lung ailments, according to a study that suggests reducing pollution could cut medical spending as well.
Earlier studies have established a link between air pollution and early death, but this is the first large-scale look at the impact on medical care itself, said Victor R. Fuchs, a Stanford University economist and lead author of the study being published Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs.

"With medical care spending exceeding $1 trillion per year, even a reduction of only a few percentage points would save society tens of billions of dollars annually," the study concluded...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-11-12-pollution-health_x.htm

And finally, as India and China come online, there is a reasonable expectation that energy will be the driving force that starts WWIII.

Hopefully you already realize the threat posed by global warming in terms of displaced populations, disease, contaminated drinking water, the loss of fresh water through glacial melting, crop failures, famines, fires, floods, and perhaps eventually the collapse of the economy...

I'm sorry, what was the concern again?

It is not a matter of action coming without risk, but it is a fallacy to think that a lack of action is an acceptable option or less risky. If you want to worry, then worry about both sides of the issue. A viable option to fossil fuel will solve most problems.

 

[Evo]

I think it's the crazy stuff like deploying a blanket of mirrors in space to shield the earth, to filling the atmosphere with noxious gases, to painting the Earth white, without even knowing if the warming has ended ( global warming stopped in 2005 and has been declining since). Whether it is just a dip or a real downward trend, we don't know yet.

We've been suffering in the mid US from below normal temperatures for the last 4 years. Any measures to cool the Earth would be catastrophic to our ecosystem.

 

[mgb_phys]

If you think that everybody concerned about global warming advocates drastic geo-engineering projects like fertilizing the ocean or spraying light-reflecting chemicals into the atmosphere, you're sadly mistaken.

The worry is that the people with the power to do them advocate these sort of schemes!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it's the crazy stuff like deploying a blanket of mirrors in space to shield the earth, to filling the atmosphere with noxious gases, to painting the Earth white, without even knowing if the warming has ended ( global warming stopped in 2005 and has been declining since). Whether it is just a dip or a real downward trend, we don't know yet.

We've been suffering in the mid US from below normal temperatures for the last 4 years. Any measures to cool the Earth would be catastrophic to our ecosystem.

Where do you get your information?

It is stated by practically every definitive scientific organization that global warming is undeniable. The only debate relates to how significant is the role of CO2 emissions.

From the 2007 report for policy makers.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
(Figure SPM.1). {1.1}

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Even if CO2 played no role in warming, which we know it does, and which we know will also dominate the climate systems based on the current release rates, it would make sense to curb warming to whatever extent we can.

 

[Evo]

Where do you get your information?

All of those crazy solutions have been linked to in previous discussions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The worry is that the people with the power to do them advocate these sort of schemes!

It is also a fallacy that most of these techniques would be irreversible. If we find that the warming slows or stops, we can stop the intervention. What's the problem?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All of those crazy solutions have been linked to in previous discussions.

That isn't an answer. I posted a report from the organization designated to make sense of this. You posted nothing.

 

[Evo]

That isn't an answer. I posted a report from the organization designated to make sense of this. You posted nothing.

The IPCC? I thought it was agreed that most of the people that created these reports were not actually scientists.

I'll read it and see if anyone is a scientist in the field they comment in. And if the comments were not subsequently dismissed, as many were.

Do any of the IPCC reports discuss these crazy extreme measures?

 

[ideasrule]

The IPCC? I thought it was agreed that most of the people that created these reports were not actually scientists.

I'll read it and see if anyone is a scientist in the field they comment in. And if the comments were not subsequently dismissed, as many were.

While you do that, keep in mind that many IPCC predictions have been found to be grossly over-optimistic. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html, for example, which predicts a much larger sea level rise than the IPCC.

It's also very misleading to say that the planet has been cooling since 2005. Three years have passed since 2005 ended: 2006, 2007, and 2008. 2008 was the tenth warmest year on record, exceeded only by years that are within the 1998-2008 period. And you can't do meaningful statistics on the remaining 2 data points.

 

[Evo]

Three years have passed since 2005 ended: 2006, 2007, and 2008. 2008 was the tenth warmest year on record, exceeded only by years that are within the 1998-2008 period. .

And each of those years were cooler than 2005.

 

[ideasrule]

And each of those years were cooler than 2005.

Yes, that's called doing statistics on small numbers. Once you actually plot the data, you get something like this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

 

[Blenton]

Yeah and I bet in 1940 people were in panic by the never ending temperature climb...My statement was that people are seriously considering to do drastic measures to kerb this apparent global warming. They use the "Humans made this mess, humans will fix this mess" ideology which is incredibly moronic. We don't understand the problem, we really don't. There are dozens of contradictions to what is causing the global warming, a plethora of variables that govern the complex nature of our climate and yet people have the audacity to fix what isn't broken. We're going to increase cloud reflectivity or remove CO2 from the atmosphere and cause terrible problems.

 

[ideasrule]

Yeah and I bet in 1940 people were in panic by the never ending temperature climb...


My statement was that people are seriously considering to do drastic measures to kerb this apparent global warming. They use the "Humans made this mess, humans will fix this mess" ideology which is incredibly moronic. We don't understand the problem, we really don't. There are dozens of contradictions to what is causing the global warming, a plethora of variables that govern the complex nature of our climate and yet people have the audacity to fix what isn't broken. We're going to increase cloud reflectivity or remove CO2 from the atmosphere and cause terrible problems.

I don't understand how removing the CO2 that humans put in is going to do anything except revert the planet's climate to its pre-industrial state. Despite the complexities involved in climate modeling, it's clear that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet; that part is beyond doubt. I'd agree with you that more data is needed before one can say increasing cloud reflectivity is safe, though; unlike low CO2 levels, that's not something Earth has experienced in its recent history.

 

[Blenton]

it's clear that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet

No its not.

 

[ideasrule]

No its not.

I don't want to sound derogatory, but do you happen to be a planetary scientist? You're directly contradicting the vast majority of planetary scientists, including the national academies of every major industrialized country, in making a statement that contradicts both climate models and experimental data. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming, and note that this article is a Featured Article with more than a hundred references.

 

[Blenton]

Oh excellent source, a wikipedia article.

I don't have to be a planetary scientist to say that it is not clear. Theories spring up, are debunked and are replaced by new ones. If it were so evidently clear I wouldn't be here discussing this with you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I remember when it was clearly obvious that global warming was caused by chlorofluorocarbons depleting the ozone layer.

 

[seycyrus]

Yes, that's called doing statistics on small numbers. Once you actually plot the data, you get something like this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Uhm, do you see what your data is doing at the end of your graph?

 

[ideasrule]

Oh excellent source, a wikipedia article.

I don't have to be a planetary scientist to say that it is not clear. Theories spring up, are debunked and are replaced by new ones. If it were so evidently clear I wouldn't be here discussing this with you.

That Wikipedia article is a Featured Article and has more than 130 references, all of which are legitimate scientific papers. It's probably the best source on global warming you'll find on the Internet.

I've no reason to take your word--the word of a layman--over that of hundreds of thousands of experts in the field. Saying it isn't clear that global warming exists is like saying it isn't clear evolution occurred: the experts believe one thing and the general public quite another. In cases like that, I know who I'm siding with.

 

[jgens]

Uhm, do you see what your data is doing at the end of your graph?

It's fallacious to draw conclusions based upon two or three data points!

 

[Loren Booda]

Simply said,

1. Recognize what energy is.

2. Develop a responsible mindset toward it.

3. Conserve its presence in nature.

4. Minimize its environmental impact.

5. Generate it only for basic needs.

 

[junglebeast]

( global warming stopped in 2005 and has been declining since). Whether it is just a dip or a real downward trend, we don't know yet.

For some reason I cannot find any global warming graphs / charts that show data up to 2009. They all stop at around 2000...what's with that? I want to see the trend...

 

[robertm]

Simply said,

1. Recognize what energy is.

2. Develop a responsible mindset toward it.

3. Conserve its presence in nature.

4. Minimize its environmental impact.

5. Generate it only for basic needs.

Thank you!

Global Warming this Global Warming that, the real problem is one of the conflict of human nature and current societies against efficiency and the economy of nature. The global warming debate is a distraction to the real challenge of figuring out how to do what Loren just stated above.

 

[Andre]

For some reason I cannot find any global warming graphs / charts that show data up to 2009. They all stop at around 2000...what's with that? I want to see the trend...

Perhaps image google RSS global temperature or UAH global temperature

 

[junglebeast]

Thanks, that has helped me to find some graphs.

Here we have atmospheric CO2, very obviously on the rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uc_seallevel_2009r2.png"

Here we have global sea level, showing a consistent linear trend over the past 20 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uc_seallevel_2009r2.png"

And here we have global temperature levels, which seem a bit more complex, and appear to have about a 4 year period for bouncing up and down, which has stayed roughly consistent over the last 30 years. This is the one that some people seem to be contending. Well it's funny that some people are arguing this downward trend is a sign that the whole thing is a hoax, because from the graph over the past 30 years we expect to see downward trends like this every 4 years or so. While it's "possible" that it's going to keep going down and never come back up, that doesn't seem very logical considering that it has been repeating this cycle before, and the greenhouse gasses which are an underlying cause are obviously still increasing.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2604836403_6b075902b3.jpg"

 

[Andre]

And here we have global temperature levels, which seem a bit more complex, and appear to have about a 4 year period for bouncing up and down, which has stayed roughly consistent over the last 30 years. This is the one that some people seem to be contending. Well it's funny that some people are arguing this downward trend is a sign that the whole thing is a hoax, because from the graph over the past 30 years we expect to see downward trends like this every 4 years or so. While it's "possible" that it's going to keep going down and never come back up, that doesn't seem very logical considering that it has been repeating this cycle before, and the greenhouse gasses which are an underlying cause are obviously still increasing.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2604836403_6b075902b3.jpg"

Fair enough, but wasn't the scientific method about testing predictions against reality? How would the old predictions, that triggered the alarms, do nowadays?

 

[Chi Meson]

Can I save us a few pages here?

"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"

 

[Evo]

For some reason I cannot find any global warming graphs / charts that show data up to 2009. They all stop at around 2000...what's with that? I want to see the trend...

I killed my computer last week, so don't have my bookmarks, but here is a graph through 2008 for the US.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/1208natltemp.png

 

[Evo]

Also here you can see that 2008 has dropped back near 1997 levels globally. The year 2005 was an unusual spike, as you can see from the list.

(Jan-Dec) Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
2005 0.61 1.10
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2006 0.55 0.99
2007 0.55 0.99
2004 0.53 0.95
2001 0.49 0.88
2008 0.49 0.88
1997 0.46 0.83

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html

 

[thomasxc]

well, IMO, i think scaling back how much energy we use, etc, as well as creating better, more efficient technologies is a good idea regardless of whether global warming exists and if it's getting worse.

 

[lisab]

well, IMO, i think scaling back how much energy we use, etc, as well as creating better, more efficient technologies is a good idea regardless of whether global warming exists and if it's getting worse.

I totally agree...as long as oil is the lifeblood of our economy, the problems in the Middle East are our problems too .

 

[mgb_phys]

I totally agree...as long as oil is the lifeblood of our economy, the problems in the Middle East are our problems too .

Erm you do know where the US gets most of it's oil from?

ps - please don't spread it around - we don't want to be invaded.
pps - well if you stuck to bringing freedom and democracy to Alberta we wouldn't care too much

 

[wittgenstein]

There is no doubt that humans have contributed to global warming. Unless you believe that 98% of the world's scientists and all of the organizations listed below are part of a vast conspiracy. But then again I guess anythings possible. Big foot might even exist!

The following illustrates the growing consensus of scientific experts that believe climate change over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Organizations that concur:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
National Research Council (US)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences

Organizations with noncommittal statements:
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Dissenting opinion:
Michael Savage
(With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate)

 

[thomasxc]

Tho to be fair, industry and special interest groups have been devoting resources to a disinformation campaign with individual scientists being payed to take an anti-global warming position. I can see why some people are confused as to what the facts actually are.

definitely.too much confusion. to start, the average joe is not a scientist. the confusion you speak of just adds to it, in a way.

 

[junglebeast]

Fair enough, but wasn't the scientific method about testing predictions against reality? How would the old predictions, that triggered the alarms, do nowadays?

Well the B and C predictions look pretty darn good to me...although it seems silly to even bother trying to predict the exact curve, like trying to predict the stock market exactly. I would rather see a monte carlo analysis. But I don't know, are these predictions even based on global fluid dynamics? If not, if they are just "charting" predictions, then I would not give them a second thought...

 

[lisab]

Erm you do know where the US gets most of it's oil from?

ps - please don't spread it around - we don't want to be invaded.
pps - well if you stuck to bringing freedom and democracy to Alberta we wouldn't care too much

Wow, did you just give us Alberta?!? We're reciprocate by giving you Alabama...we'll throw in Mississippi too, just since your're such good neighbors !

 

[kldickson]

Oh man. Canada can have Alberta. While you're at it, we'll give you everything east of New Mexico and south of Northern Virginia. It's rich plantin' country down there. Never mind the hicks.

 

[kldickson]

Not that all Southerners are hicks; I have been privileged to know some well-educated, intelligent Southerners. But they are clearly not in the majority.

 

[Evo]

Unless you believe that 98% of the world's scientists and all of the organizations listed below are part of a vast conspiracy.

Do you always blindly buy into the politically correct "consensus" of the day? Just because people throw their hat into the ring doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

No different from the completely wrong scientific consensus in 1989 vehemently endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences and the Surgeon General that trans fatty acids posed no danger to Americans, that "the levels of trans fatty acids found in a balanced diet are safe". and that the Dutch study claiming that trans fats were harmful was rubish.

Well, we know now that the consensus was wrong.

I don't get sucked in by politically correct "consensus".

 

[mgb_phys]

Wow, did you just give us Alberta?!? We're reciprocate by giving you Alabama...we'll throw in Mississippi too, just since your're such good neighbors !

I have been informed that I don't have permission to give away provinces (although if you wanted to take Quebec off our hands I'm sure people wouldn't mind too much)

Not sure about Alabama, is Alaska available?

Have you tried giving California back to Mexico? They might not get the WSJ down there and don't know about the deficit

 

[kldickson]

Evo, the data on the non-AGW side of things seems awfully deficient compared to the pro-AGW side of things.

 

[wittgenstein]

"Do you always blindly buy into the politically correct "consensus" of the day?"
Evo

I never claimed that every scientific organization in the world is 100% correct 100% of the time. However, when the entire world's scientific community agrees on something, I would say that that something is very very likely.
Your examples only prove that with a vast scientific community, an error or two may occur.

 

[mheslep]

The IPCC? I thought it was agreed that most of the people that created these reports were not actually scientists.

...

Amusingly, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, started out as a Locomotive engineer. He's certainly not a climate scientist.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm

 

[wittgenstein]

Evo what guidelines have I violated.
Perhaps you should read them.
"Do you always blindly buy into the politically correct "consensus" of the day?"
Evo
Personal attacks are allowed? Anyway, let's not get petty.

 

[Evo]

Evo, the data on the non-AGW side of things seems awfully deficient compared to the pro-AGW side of things.

That's not what I'm sayiing. It's the fact that scientists have decided that the public is too stupid to understand the real problems of pollution and instead throws out "facts" that aren't facts. They're models, and they are, as has been repeatedly shown, flawed models. That is why we have people driving around in cars all day passing out flyers about polar bears.

Evo what guidelines have I violated.

You didn't receive a warning.

Perhaps you should read them.
"Do you always blindly buy into the politically correct "consensus" of the day?"
Evo
Personal attacks are allowed? Anyway, let's not get petty.

Blindly, as in ''without question".

 

[mheslep]

Well the B and C predictions look pretty darn good to me...

The Hansen paper shows the results of his '88 model. The model had an input A,B,C and an output A,B,C as models do. The inputs were guesses at the future of man made emissions which has nothing to do with climate physics. B and C were small and no growth emissions scenarios. That didn't happen (even though Hansen though B emissions would). What undeniably happened was A, a large growth in emissions, so Hansen's model predicts outcome A, and as you can see that prediction was substantially wrong.

 

[wittgenstein]

"That is why we have people driving around in cars all day passing out flyers about polar bears."
Evo
I'm confused. So you are saying that the polar bear environment is not diminishing?

"Amusingly, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, started out as a Locomotive engineer. He's certainly not a climate scientist."
First of all the chairman does not decide a consensus. It would be like saying," Bush is incompetent and in charge of the military. The military says that missiles can shoot down planes. Therefore it is questionable if missiles can shoot down planes." However, I will provisionally accept that Rajendra Pachauri is incompetent to decide about global warming and has the power to make that the position of the IPCC.
So you are saying that the following organizations are part of a conspiracy? Or are you saying that all the scientists that belong to these organizations are incompetent?World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics