Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Xietor]

It is snowing here! I kid you not. That is like snow in Abysia. The last snow I can recall was when i was in law school back in the 80's. And that was a few flurries. My car is buried in snow and there is snow on the ground!

I blame KO of course. :) Someone from the Nordic North cast a foul spell on us. I had the air conditioner on(seriously) 2 nights ago because it was warm and muggy. And now it is snowing.:eek:

[WingedDog]

New Orleans? Are you sure? :shock: Damn! It was supposed to be Miami... :doh:

[llamabeast]

Wow!!

[DonCorazon]

Wolven Winter usually precedes an attack by Niefelheim. Watch out for Frost Jarls!

[atul]

Bah. That's just some symphatic magic or something. We here in cold north would be happy to take your snow, but it's only rain in here. Damned climate switch.

[WingedDog]

Well, in reverse, it's unnaturally warm here in Moscow. When usually everithing is covered with snow since the beginning of November, we had about +7 - +9°C (45 - 48°F) until recently.

[Xietor]

"Wolven Winter usually precedes an attack by Niefelheim. Watch out for Frost Jarls!"

Frost Jarls would not have a prayer in New Orleans. We are now ranked the most violent city in the United States. I guess we have turmoil 3 and misfortune 3 scales. In any event the national guard still patrols New Orleans-having never left after Katrina. And yet we are still the murder capital of the known world. Actually I think we are only 3rd in the entire world, but first in the States by a huge margin.

But on a more cheery note, Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow,,,,,,,

[MaxWilson]

It's probably caused by global warming.

-Max

(Just making fun of the people who link every heat wave and ablating glacier to "global warming." Sometimes trends are *local*, not global.)

[lch]

(Just making fun of the people who link every heat wave and ablating glacier to "global warming." Sometimes trends are *local*, not global.)
The joke being that it probably is linked to global warming. :p

[Tifone]

Looks like the snowstorm in India at the beginning of the movie "The Day After"... :cold: Start burning books before ya freeze!! :shock:

[MaxWilson]

The joke being that it probably is linked to global warming. :p

Riiight, and so is the snow melting on Mount Kilimanjaro.

-Max

[Tifone]

Riiight, and so is the snow melting on Mount Kilimanjaro.


Ehm... yes it is? ;) (82% of snow loss on the top of it in the last century... dunno why but I don't think it's due to Abysia having cast Second Sun :D )...

[thejeff]

It's not possible to link any one event, storm or heat wave or whatever to global warming. Weather is variable and any individual event could happen regardless.
However, one of the predictions the models make is that weather will be come more extreme. Storms, heat waves, cold snaps will all be come more common and severe as the average global temperature rises. So, yes it's quite possible.

And I don't know about Kilimanjaro, but the artic and antarctic glacial melting is about as linked to global warming as anything is. Moving faster than predicted, if anything. Trends at both poles and linked to ocean circulation are not "just local"

[Xietor]

I guess i can start with burning my dominions manual since it is out of date now!:D:D:D

[MaxWilson]

Riiight, and so is the snow melting on Mount Kilimanjaro.


Ehm... yes it is? ;) (82% of snow loss on the top of it in the last century... dunno why but I don't think it's due to Abysia having cast Second Sun :D )...

So you know that it's been shrinking for more than a century. Do you concede that it's been shrinking since 1870, and that the temperature has averaged 12 degrees (F) below freezing all the time we've been measuring it and has never exceeded 3 degrees below freezing? (That is, the snow is *ablating*, not melting. Reference http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html.) If unusual weather is evidence of a global warming trend regardless of what kind of weather it is, and shrinking snowpack/glaciers are evidence of a global warming trend regardless of the cause of the shrinkage, is there anything which does *not* constitute evidence for a global trend?

That's terrible science, irrespective of whether Seattle will be hotter or cooler 20 years from now (it's hard to tell). There's no way to know why New Orleans has snow but it's not evidence of anything relating to global temperatures, yet. Although I have it on good authority that the Louisiana snowstorm was caused by a Monarch butterfly in Oklahoma flapping his wings last June.

-Max

[Tifone]

Could you please find another relevant source? One beginning with...

"YOU CHOSE a visit to a wind-farm in early summer 2008 to devote an entire campaign speech to the reassertion of your belief in the apocalyptic vision of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change - a lurid and fanciful account of imagined future events that was always baseless, was briefly exciting among the less thoughtful species of news commentators and politicians, but is now scientifically discredited. (???)

With every respect, there is no rational basis for your declared intention that your great nation should inflict upon her own working people and upon the starving masses of the Third World the extravagantly-pointless, climatically-irrelevant, strategically-fatal economic wounds that the arrogant advocates of atmospheric alarmism admit they aim to achieve.*"

...doesn't seem totally unbiased :)

*(they admit they aim to achieve pointless economical wounds to their own countries? ma lol!)

PS:
There's no way to know why New Orleans has snow but it's not evidence of anything relating to global temperatures, yet.

Nobody here has actually claimed undisputed "evidence" for that. ;)

PPS: I suggest a big OT in the thread's title :D

[thejeff]

No one claims snow in New Orleans is evidence of global warming. I said it's possible (maybe even likely) it's due to global warming, but that's far different than being evidence of.

Again, no single unusual weather event is evidence, there have always been unusual weather events. A statistic increase in both the number and severity of such events is predicted and would be evidence. Do you see the difference?

[licker]

How pointless.

If temperatures go up it's global warming.

If they go down?

Yep, still global warming...

Though the entire point of the exercise is to link rising temperatures to CO2 anyway, but not the converse...

How odd that we listen to non scientists like Al Gore to explain systems as complicated as the global climate, yet ignore any findings which show alternative causes to rising temperatures.

Well the dogma has been bought already, no reason to ask for a refund I guess.

[Tifone]

Look, I'll try to explain it in a non-difficult way :)

Global warming = temperatures go up.
Temperatures go up = ice caps melt in the poles (expecially the north pole, this summer for the first time both the northwest and the northeast passages opened)
Ice caps melt = lots of cold, fresh water go in the oceans
Cold fresh water in the oceans = it disturbs the hot currents which mainly from the tropical/equatorial gulfs go warming the coasts around the world
Hot currents disturbed = Heat goes down around :cold: and it is increased the chance of typhoons floodings hurricanes etc. due to pressure jolts

The thing is obviously much more complicated. Still it's not that difficult to understand that global warming can make the temperatures go both ways.

And btw nobody just "listens to non scientists like Al Gore", (he made a great documentary while not scientifically perfect, and has the merit of having brought "sixpackjoe"'s attention to the problem); still ppl even listen to commissions of top-climatologists and scientists of other branches (including Nobel prizes) which say the problem exists, it's serious and even the Kyoto protocol wouldn't be enough to stop the huge and dangerous climate changes of the next centuries. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Our sons will pay for our greed.

[licker]

Except that this past winter the arctic had its largest ice coverage in something like 30 or more years (I can look for the citation). But so what?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for better controls on pollution, including CO2 emissions, but not for the ridiculous notions Al Gore lied to everyone about.

His documentary wasn't just imperfect science, it was pure bollocks designed to scare based on lies.

I think you should take another look at how cold water from the poles would affect the gulf of mexico as well, you seem to be implying that the melt from this summer was both greater than normal, and managed to reach the gulf in some 5 months or so.

Also the past two hurricane seasons have been much lighter than what the alarmists were predicting after one anomalous season 3 years back.

It's not simple, this much is true though.

[Tifone]

It was the Antartic ice. Yeah last winter - just a bit above the average, nothing to go excited about.
This winter instead, among the lower ones ever registered - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

Al Gore lied? Not so much. Nine errors, nothing really "wrong" but exaggerations on the full synergy of some of the causes/effects and a bit too catastrophic predictions compared to the actual datas in our hands. - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+ climate+change+film/article.do

But we can just say "omg he LIED!!!1!onehundredeleven!!!" and go though it! :smirk:

[Trumanator]

You know the "Senate Minority Report" now consists of over 650 international scientists who dipute GW. Many of them are current or former IPCC scientists who have turned against it.

Not that it matters anymore. GW has now reached the status of a religion, and it is essentially impossible to convince people on either side of the aisle to join your own side. The only way they do is when they decide for themselves.

The most dangerous part of the GW activist movement is the growing lawlessness of it. A bunch of activists in Britain vandalized a factory, but were aquitted on the grounds that it would cause future damage to them through GW. Their star witness was NASA's official GW expert. Just recently a bunch of activists shut down London airport, and its quite possible that they will get the same treatment.

[thejeff]

Except that this past winter the arctic had its largest ice coverage in something like 30 or more years (I can look for the citation). But so what?

Yes, it did. Also the thinnest. Ice volume was still very low.
I haven't seen anything on what the summer ice coverage looked like?
How much of that melted away?

[vfb]

'I didn't see one cube of ice':

First commercial ship sails through Northwest Passage (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/11/28/nwest-vessel.html)

[MaxWilson]

Could you please find another relevant source? One beginning with...


Yes, Monckton has an opinion, and I cited him only to support my facts about Kilimanjaro. I never asked you to believe his analysis, because uncritical belief is exactly what I'm criticizing here. But okay, you asked for a more neutral source for the facts. Here's the paper Monckton cited.

http://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/moelg_etal_2003jgr.pdf

Abstract: In the context of investigating modern glacier recession on Kilimanjaro, which began around 1880, this study addresses the glacier regime of the vertical ice walls that typically form the margins of Kilimanjaro’s summit glaciers. These walls have suffered a continuous lateral retreat during the twentieth century...

*snip to body* AWS data through July 2002 show that monthly mean air temperatures only vary slightly around the annual mean of 7.1 C, and air temperatures (measured by ventilated sensors, e.g., Georges and Kaser [2002]) never rise above the freezing
point.

By the way, it looks like Monckton was incorrect about sublimation being the primary mechanism, at least according to Molg. Molg concludes that air temperatures are unimportant, and that direct solar radiation is the driver behind the recession. (I.e. it is "melting" after all. At least I think that's what he's saying.)

Do you apply this level of scrutiny to both sides of the global warming debate, or are you skeptical only of the skeptics? If you're skeptical of both, then good.

-Max

[Illuminated One]

About 15 years ago we often used to have snow so high that I could sink in completely in the hinterland (ok, I was a kid back then but I was not that small :D). Every winter people went ice skating on frozen lakes. Now for several winters we got maybe 30cm snow at max and going onto the ice is madness (except of course if you don't mind walking home in slowly freezing clothes :D ). So here the climate has definitely changed.
I won't say that this is due to GW or that we will all die because of GW but I wouldn't dismiss it easily.
The main problem is imo that it has been blown up to giant proportions by the media and activists.

By the way, it looks like Monckton was incorrect about sublimation being the primary mechanism, at least according to Molg. Molg concludes that air temperatures are unimportant, and that direct solar radiation is the driver behind the recession. (I.e. it is "melting" after all. At least I think that's what he's saying.)

Hmm, this should probably support the sun-is-getting-hotter-theory?
I can see two problems with that (I haven't fully read through the article though):

First is that measuring the air temperature at a glacier probably doesn't mean too much. When there's ice involved there will be a thermodynamic equilibrium even if there's warm material pumped into the system.
When you have a drink with ice cubes in it and pour in more warm drink the temperature will be the same as before after some minutes only the ice cubes are getting less. I don't know if the glacier situation is exceptional for some reason though.

Second point is that it's quite a jump from it's not the air to it's direct sun radiation.
What about radiation reflected by the atmosphere (which according to global warming should be getting higher)?

Yeah, you could even rise a third point - what about humidity levels? Would be also a relevant factor and the article seems to say they have changed.

[MaxWilson]

About 15 years ago we often used to have snow so high that I could sink in completely in the hinterland (ok, I was a kid back then but I was not that small :D). Every winter people went ice skating on frozen lakes. Now for several winters we got maybe 30cm snow at max and going onto the ice is madness (except of course if you don't mind walking home in slowly freezing clothes :D ). So here the climate has definitely changed.


Moreover, the Hudson used to freeze so solid that Washington counted on being able to drag his cannons across on the ice. Not any more. The climate has changed. And before that, it used to be much hotter during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today, so much so that there were dairy farms in Greenland. (IIRC, Iceland just brought in its first barley crop in centuries sometime this past year.) Yes, climate changes. Which direction is it changing in now, since the year 2000? (The evidence that it's still getting hotter is weak, although the evidence that it's starting to cool is even weaker.)

Your other questions and observations (air temperature, etc.) are good too. Thank you. I wish everyone had your attitude. :)

-Max

P.S. I actually don't necessarily think the study in question supports the sun-is-getting-hotter theory so much as it supports the local-effects-usually-have-local-causes theory.

[JimMorrison]

The average temperature of the world is gradually, and consistently increasing.

Greenhouse effect (Co2) can perhaps not be 100% conclusively linked to this phenomenon, however observations of nearby planets and their atmospheres, plus empirical laboratory testing shows that this -could- contribute to atmospheric warming.

Ultimately, the real point is not whether or not humanity is directly causing the climactic trend. The point is that it is happening, and that if it continues to happen, things are going to get a lot harder for everyone.

So you have to ask yourself, are we helping to solve the problem? Just not causing something through deliberate personal action, doesn't absolve you from the repercussions of the situation.

Living with your head in the sand isn't going to do anyone any good. And just remember, there is a significant chance that sand will be underwater within the decade, and we wouldn't want anyone to drown out of total ignorance, would we?

[MaxWilson]

The average temperature of the world is gradually, and consistently increasing.

No, it isn't.

-Max

[JimMorrison]

Actually, yes it is -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Also, sea surface temperature is rising as well -

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/global_temp.html


Again I can only repeat - at a certain point, the cause of this trend is somewhat irrelevant, what matters is how we respond to the changes, and safeguard the viability of our massive and growing population.

[MaxWilson]

1.) Your chart stops ten years ago. Temperature hasn't been rising for several years now.

2.) It's still not consistent. Quoting from your own link, "Figure 1 shows a rise of about 0.6 K since 1910 and no trend between 1940-75." Sometimes it rises, sometimes it falls. In the 20th century it rose more often than it fell, and there was a net temperature gain. In some other centuries, there wasn't.

Global mean temperature is not "gradually, and consistently increasing." (Even if you can come up with a sensible definition of a global "mean".)

-Max

[chrispedersen]

(Just making fun of the people who link every heat wave and ablating glacier to "global warming." Sometimes trends are *local*, not global.)
The joke being that it probably is linked to global warming. :p

According to the people that take such statistics.. this average global temperature this year is shaping up to be the coldest year in 10 years.

[sum1lost]

Speaking as someone who does know a bit about it, whether or not you believe it is warming, the environment is taking a hell of a beating from something.

BTW, due to various issues, even a small change in climate is pretty devastating, and for a number of species, we are literally on the tipping point.

[JimMorrison]

You can twist and spin all you want, what does it prove?

Yes, one year may be colder or warmer than the last. One decade may or may not show as strong a trend as that before it. We are talking about a simply -massive- system, that apparently is too large for most people to grasp in its entirety.

You can nitpick about my use of the term "consistent", but debating semantics will similarly not dispel the reality of the situation. I use consistent in terms of a geological timescale, not an Americanized ADHD perspective.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080417_marchstats.html

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.


If you'd like, we can discuss what makes a trend, and what does not. But since we have started measuring nearly 150 years ago, the temperature has been rising, and as was pointed out, the rate of overall increase dramatically escalated in the last 30 years.


(EDIT - adding a couple more quotes from this report, for those who don't want to take the time to read it.)

The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3°F above the 20th century mean of 40.8°F. Temperatures more than 8°F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

Despite above average snowpack levels in the U.S., the total Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was the fourth lowest on record for March, remaining consistent with boreal spring conditions of the past two decades, in which warming temperatures have contributed to anomalously low snow cover extent.

[MaxWilson]

You can nitpick about my use of the term "consistent", but debating semantics will similarly not dispel the reality of the situation. I use consistent in terms of a geological timescale, not an Americanized ADHD perspective.

No, you're not thinking in geologic timescales. Geologically speaking, we're at a warm spot (but not exceptionally warm, less so than the Medieval Warm Period) in between ice ages. Cold kills crops and causes famine. If you were thinking in geological timescales you'd be worried about the fact that the heat might go away again.

And you're still cherry-picking. "The rate of increase went up dramatically in the last 30 years," you say, but it went to zero in the last ten years. It looks like a worrisome (open-ended) trend only if you cherry-pick your timescale to make it so.

I've said enough for now.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

Ah, skip it. I'm talking like a jerk. Sorry, Jim. I'd delete that post but it's past the 30 minute limit.

-Max

[JimMorrison]

Hey, it's a heated issue, Max! *rimshot*


But seriously, I understand, I was getting a little riled myself, and as much as it's a good thing to maintain control of one's self in a disagreement, it's equally a good thing to not get upset if your opponent gets a bit terse or combative. :p


Anyway, all evidence points towards a warming trend that has been lasting for thousands of years now. That coupled with the fact that most life on Earth exists between 35° and 105° Fahrenheit, and it becomes rather important, especially when you talk about an anomolous 1/2 degree jump in 30 years. Globally. That is an enormous amount of material to warm or cool in a measurable manner.

The air is warming, we can see there is consistently (there's that word again!) less snowpack than in decades past, and glaciers are very rapidly receding.

The sea is warming, we can see that arctic/antarctic ice is melting away from passages never before clear in history, also coral reefs that live in very delicate ecosystems, and took thousands of years to grow, are dying off because the water temperatures are rising.


The sad part of all of this, is that everytime any kind of liberal and/or environmental issue surfaces, there is a subculture that is wildly ignorant to any actual facts, who are more than eager to champion that cause, and make total asses out of everyone else who is trying to work off of facts. Meanwhile, this causes a knee-jerk response in more conservative types, who see this obviously reactionary activity, and try to end it. Sometimes the roles are reversed, but for some reason the wildly ignorant conservatives (race-hate-mongers, etc) manage to not scream so loudly as the liberals. :p But it all makes it hard for us to converge on the facts, and come to agreement as to what those facts actually mean.

[Tifone]

You know the "Senate Minority Report" now consists of over 650 international scientists who dipute GW. Many of them are current or former IPCC scientists who have turned against it.

Wow, ExxonMobil's doing it again? ;)

- http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

- http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

(j/k)

The most dangerous part of the GW activist movement is the growing lawlessness of it.

The most dangerous part of hiding the head under the sand is that we'll continue harming the planet instead :down:

And about vandals... there are idiots everywhere they can damage something, I think (with full respect) you are making an argumentum ad personam :)

And that's not "a religion". Like is not "a religion" believing in evolution or gravity or whatever. That's just a scientific theory which is gathering datas that -for now- mostly point in the direction that us, burning lots of fossil fuels, are significantly helping something that surely has even other causes, and we need to reduce pollution (which would even have other significant positive effects on environment, so many other wins) and move to greener energy sources. :world:

[llamabeast]

I think global warming wouldn't be remotely controversial if it wasn't so strongly in our interest not to believe in it.

[llamabeast]

Ha, sorry, that was another of my cheerfully provocative posts! I think I shouldn't be allowed to post on politics or global warming. So although I do agree with my previous post, please ignore it if you don't like it, because the way I wrote it as just a single sentence makes it more provocation than argument.

[Tifone]

Explaining that one would be welcome instead I think :)

[Edi]

If we intend to be serious about stopping the man-made effect that contributes to (as opposed to being the sole cause of) global warming, all of us would have to take a massive hit into our lifestyles, is what he means, I suspect.

It just so happens that the 650 skeptics are a drop in a bucket compared to the larger body of climate scientists who have achieved a consensus that humans have a significant effect on global warming, increasing it. That's comparable to some intelligent design proponents who made a lo tof hay about some Steve somebody who was a scientist and backed their crazy ideas. An Australian organization of scientists signed up 700 scientists from that same field whose first name was Steve to refute his bull**** and in the glkobal warming discussion, the 650 denier scientists are a comparable example.

The primary cause of global warming is build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably CO2. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased fivefold in the last 150 years and almost all of that carbon has a radiological footprint of being millions or tens or hundreds of millions of years in age. That means that nearly all of it is of fossil origin, i.e. coal. Unless that is taken out of the atmosphere by some means, there is no way to return to the same mechanisms that caused the early medieval warm bump and the mini ice age in the 1600s.

The increase of the greenhouse gases leads to less reradiation of heat into space, so the earth absorbs more from the sun than it emits back out on the night side. Increase of temperature causes the ice caps to melt, which reduces albedo, which again reduces the amount reflected and reradiated out.

If there are slight dips and and bumps in a curve that overall has an upward trend, the individual dips and bumps don't mean much. Likewise, a transitory local weather phenomenon does not mean much, because the heat distribution throughout the world is not even by a long shot and local variation can be significant without impacting the overall trends at all.

There are also some other factors that cause variation. Large volcanic eruptions cool temperatures because of the obscuring effect the ash has on the sun, causing less heat to reach the ground. Another factor on the geological timescales is continental placement. The earth has been much warmer at some points, because during those periods there was no Central American isthmus to block the warm equatorial current that would have counteracted the effect of the cold currents circling Antarctica and some other continents were likewise in other places.

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

[Tifone]

Lol, I knew Edi was about to arrive in the thread ;):up: (I remember a previous discussion on the topic)

[licker]

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

This is funny. Our societies may have been built during colder times (I assume you are talking about 5-10k years ago?) , but proliferated as the temperatures got warmer.

Warm is better than cold for crops, for animals, for people (as a general statement). As you say, only a fool would argue the contrary.

[Tifone]

Yeah, expecially animals love superior temperatures! That's why WWF likes so much the climate changes! Umh, wait... no.

- http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/impacts/index.cfm

- http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/cause/climate_sceptics/index.cfm

You may be interested even in this:

- http://www.geog.umd.edu/resac/outgoing/GEOG442%20Fall%202005/Lecture%20materials/extinctions%20and%20climate%20change.pdf

And about "men living better with higher temperatures" you are probably thinking about summer holidays, but here we're talking about the possibilities of oceans' level rising, increased chance of hurricanes, not to mention proliferation of usually tropical/equatorial bacterias (dengue fever, malaria) in previously colder areas.

But maybe I'm a fool. Oh, I also live in Tuscany, we've plenty of vines for wine here, I think you can ask everyone here around how much plants like very hot summers... (and let's not talk about the chance of progressive desertification of already semi-arid areas, because I'd maybe sound too apocalyptic to some ears - still, http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_warming/older/Desertification.html and http://www.greenfacts.org/en/desertification/l-3/7-climate-change-biodiversity-loss.htm)

[sum1lost]

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

This is funny. Our societies may have been built during colder times (I assume you are talking about 5-10k years ago?) , but proliferated as the temperatures got warmer.

Warm is better than cold for crops, for animals, for people (as a general statement). As you say, only a fool would argue the contrary.

Warm is not always better for crops, animals and people. You'd have to be a fool to argue that it is. Most animals will not find it easier to survive in warmer climates, as many animals and plants are adapted to a specfic range of temperatures. The ones that will are usually endotherms, and a few other larger species. The one's you are familiar with. The animals and plants they eat are somewhat more fragile, and will collapse in the face of rapid climate change. Someone already mentioned coral reefs- they have already reached their threshold. Something fun? Coral reefs recycle a significant amount of C02 back into oxygen, and support a huge number of species. When they die, an appreciable amount of animals will go with them.

A number of animals and plants in various areas live in what, until now, was a remarkably stable climate- equatorial climates, usually. They can't migrate readily and those that normally would are in many cases trapped due to development of surrounding land. There are a huge number of animal and plant species that are likely to go extinct because it will get warmer.

Evolution isn't going to save anything's bacon that doesn't reproduce faster than fruitflies, as a lot of this is happening too quickly.

Speaking of fruitflies, a trait has been spreading in more northern flies that until recently was only found in flies from southern climates, and that trait was linked to climate. They are winning the race against climate change, but fruitflies are incredibly mobile and have a remarkable level of gene diversity and cross populaiton breeding due to human transportation of them. Most species that have been looked at are not nearly so likely to take it in stride.

[cleveland]

:hijack:

[Gregstrom]

I suspect that it's a little difficult to detect meaningful trends over less than perhaps a 50-year span, and so my feeling is that all these pro/anti GW fanatics wrangling over the last 10 years of data aren't really saying anything useful.

It seems to me that extremists on both sides of the debate are using bad science to back their arguments at times, and that both sides have at times appeared to treat ethics as being less important than putting their message across. As a result I don't really think it's worth my time taking either side of the debate seriously.

That said, I have concerns over carbon emissions. After all, we've put out enough CO2 to measurably change the composition of the atmosphere. In the absence of any certain knowledge of what the effects of this on the planet will be, it seems sensible to try and limit emissions. I'd rather have the history books saying it was all a fuss about nothing than detailing how chances to avert future problems were wasted.

NB: I don't pretend to know what sort of changes altering atmospheric CO2 levels could actually cause. For all I know, they could be positive. But... not too long ago, no-one thought that halon fire extinguishers and CFC aerosol cans could alter the environment.

[JimMorrison]

Don't even tell me you couldn't tell this was a global warming debate, Cleveland. :p

I'm just having trouble getting over my amusement that 2 moderators passed through and did the opposite of trying to squelch the discussion.

<3


The Earth is growing warmer, we accepted that? The people trying to convince you that it's not such a bad thing, are the most fabulously wealthy people on the planet - who got that way by selling you the problem. It is directly in -their- best interests to convince you that it is in -your- best interests to either ignore the warming, or claim innocence, so that you can continue in your oil reliant lifestyle as long as possible.

[cleveland]

Jim,
:) I just wish folks got as emotional about the science behind, say, heart medication as they do about global warming.

The only thing worse than an armchair scientist is one with a DSL line.

[Gregstrom]

Amen to that.

[Xietor]

Here is a picture from snowy New Orleans. As I was driving past a local high school I saw a lot of boys pelting each other with snow balls. A light bulb went off. Later that day, my ad aired on TV:

"Were you or a loved one injured or distressed by flying snow? If so, you may be entitled to a large cash award. Someone must pay. Throwing a snowball, under the law, is no different than throwing a rock. Would you let someone hit you with a rock or other object without suing for redress? And it makes no difference if the perpetrator is a minor under the age of 18. In that case, you can sue their parents as they are responsible for the actions of their children. Do not delay! Call right away! The law offices of......"



















just joking.

[JimMorrison]

Is that equipment even designed to operate below freezing? >.>

And I've been calling for more aggressive lawsuits against parents who let their children (or teach them to!) throw snowballs, for years now. We really can make a difference, if we work together.

[Edi]

That's more snow than we have right now! :D

[licker]

Good job missing the point guys.

I guess you think it would be better if the planet were getting colder right?

Pandas and Polar bears? Who cares, either they adapt or they die, that's the way of the world, that's the way it's always been. Or do you cry for the woolly mammoth? Or the other mega fauna?

It's not possible to pick a temperature and keep the system there right? Thus the temperature is always going to be moving somewhere, and up is generally accepted to be better than down. At least in the context of crop yield and animal population health.

Sure you can pull some specific examples which fare worse, but so what? That's not what I said, and I made it abundantly clear that hot isn't better for EVERYTHING, it's just better for almost everything.

Still all of that is beside the point that less pollution is better than more pollution, only I don't think we needed to have people with ulterior agendas try to scare everyone into believing that the end times are upon us.

So if you want to accept Al Gores lies for reasons for initiating sometimes radical proposals to end CO2 emission I will have to assume that you also accepted Bushes lies for reasons to invade Iraq.

[Tichy]

Good job destroying the light tone Xietor tried to inject back into this thread.
You're missing the point...which is that you can be SUED for throwing SNOWBALLS!

[Zeldor]

But what is the amount of human caused global warming? Compared to volcanoes, farting cows etc?

What about theories that there were no glaciers in Alps when Hannibal was marching on Rome?

But even if we assume that global warming is caused by humans, all that is done in the world to prevent it is mostly pure propaganda and abusing people and cheating them. Cars make about 15% of CO2 emissions. The real problems are bad power plant and we should switch to nuclear energy [which ecologists don't like], wind turbines make electricity 4x more expensive than nuclear one. And making a turbine is not ecological process at all. Also there are worse gases than CO2. We'd all have to resign from eating meat. But I guess even ecologists like steak :)

[Mithras]

Must aviod talking about global warming...
The thing about the snowballs? What scares me the most is that I am neither suprised nor disgusted.

[llamabeast]

The bottom line is that, regardless of the details, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is much, much higher than it was (a factor of 5 perhaps? something like that). And CO2 definitely has a considerable effect on the way radiation passes through the Earth's atmosphere.

That can't fail to cause changes of one kind or another to the climate. Mostly, change is bad, because locally both human society and flora and fauna have adapted to the status quo. Natural mechanisms (migration in particular, and also adaptation) can cope with slow changes, but not with fast ones. Imagine if all the local climates switch around, so that areas which were fertile become desert or swamps, and vice versa. Even if overall "warmer is better" (which I think is not true, but hey), it'd take us a very long time to adapt to that. Our cities and populations are all in the wrong place, not to mention the damage to nature. In the meantime there'll be a lot of suffering.

[licker]

Mostly change is inevitable.

Thinking that we can somehow regulate the climate to our liking is asinine at this point in our technological adventures. It's as though everyone forgets about the natural disasters which certainly happened long before humans were belching out CO2 or any other gas.

Our mere presence cannot but change the environment, and while it's a nice thought to want to minimize the impact, thinking in terms of Gaia is somewhat pointless when trying to devise methods for approaching the issue.

I strongly believe that we are better of expanding our use of renewable energies, recycling, reducing consumption, ... all of it. But I am not convinced that we are in a death spiral, or even anywhere close to it.

I'm not alone here, and if you want to poo poo the 700 scientists who break with the political orthodoxy of the IPCC so be it. Just realize that the models are just that, models, and are failing to live up to their hype from the early part of this decade.

[Omnirizon]

the people who know they're right have mostly stopped arguing a page ago and started talking about snowballs.

the people who have to fabricate truth through talk are still trying to do that.

but yeah. if animals can't adapt to human destruction of the environment, then they deserve to die. amirite? same thing for africans in poverty. what? can't stand a little slavery? c'mon, it's just the west raping your environment, economy, and culture. you can't hang, you guys deserve to die. get with the program.

[Tifone]

Pandas and Polar bears? Who cares, either they adapt or they die, that's the way of the world.

That's nice you think this way :) Sorry if some of us care about the unique and fragile flora and fauna of our world and want to preserve it. :o (I think you also fail to understand the times of adaptation)

Hey, children have always died of smallpox, do you apply that reasoning to them too? Do you protest against the scientists which make scientifical research about vaccines, AIDS etc because you don't want to "swallow their alarmist agendas"?

-

So... About snowballs!! Hey, I'm a law student, I'm sure we can put up some good c... hey, what you say? In New Orleans is the "USA common law system" in force? Oh damn, feel almost useless. :D

[licker]

Ahh the strawman... how quaint.

Life is what it is, do you think that species wouldn't go extinct if man never walked the earth?

[Tifone]

A great reason for you not to care about the ones we kill without giving them time or chance to adapt or evolve or whatever, I suppose.
(More strawman fun? "Even the murdered ppl would have died anyway even if their murderer never walked the earth.")

PS: Sorry, I'm starting to sound like a b*stard, it's just my terrible english which reduces my choice of "neutral" words)

PPS: Hey, now that I think about it, yesterday night I dreamed it was snowing in Florence!!! Didn't happen though. Foreigner premonition? :)

[Tichy]

Unfortunately, this strawman didn't need to be invoked; he started talking all by himself.

Your logic sounds to me like this, licker: "Laws against murder don't prevent all murders, therefore we shouldn't have laws against murder."

Dang it. Snaked by Tifone.

[Xietor]

"In New Orleans is the "USA common law system" in force? Oh damn, feel almost useless. :D"

Actually the 49 states, except Louisiana have the common law that is derived from England. Louisiana's system of law is derived from the French, whose law was derived
from the Romans. It is called the civil law.

As we are fond of saying here in Louisiana, the Romans had an advanced system of law when the barbarians in Britain were still throwing sticks and stones at each other. Obviously one system is superior to the other.:)

[Omnirizon]

actually. Licker was trying to cast "Polymorph argument into strawman"

unfortunately for him, the argument was a well equipped and high powered logic SC, and easily resisted his feeble spell.

[Endoperez]

I'd just like to mention that Edi's post on page 5 was the most impressive thing I've seen today.

Edi is Finnish, ergo, not a native English speaker.

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.


Salute! :wave:

[Omnirizon]

Here's a useful guide for everyone to read up on and study the Flamewarrior classes so that they can better identify everyone and study up their foe's common tactics.

Illustrated Guide to Flamewarriors (http://www.flamewarriors.com/)

also, heres a short entry on Uncy with a nice flowchart to help you follow the flamewar resolution process.

Flamewar Dispute Resolution Flowchart (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/6/6f/Uncyclopedia_dispute_resolution_flowchart.png)

[lch]

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.
copypasta! :p

[licker]

Unfortunately, this strawman didn't need to be invoked; he started talking all by himself.

Your logic sounds to me like this, licker: "Laws against murder don't prevent all murders, therefore we shouldn't have laws against murder."

Dang it. Snaked by Tifone.

Really?

What LAWS are we talking about? We're talking about climate change and species adapting to said changes. The point is that the climate has changed time and time again with zero input from mankind and that species have lived and died with zero input from mankind.

To be sure, I am not for more pollution, but to think that we can somehow control the climate is pure nonsense.

Should we actively try to destroy species? Certainly not.
Should we actively try to save species? Probably so.
Should we use flawed methodologies and pure speculation to justify our reactions? ...

Flamewar...

*chuckle*

You think this is a flamewar?

But yes using smallpox as a foil to GW is quite the strawman, and rather irrelevant. Or were you saying that we shouldn't have wiped out smallpox? OMG GENOCIDE!!!

See I can do it too ;)

[llamabeast]

Should we use flawed methodologies and pure speculation to justify our reactions?

Obviously people who want to take action against global warming wouldn't consider their belief in the worthwhileness of doing so to be based on flawed methodologies and pure speculation.

So, I accept that there are quite a few scientists who don't believe that we can in any way alleviate global warming by cutting CO2 emissions, either because they believe it's not happening, because they think it's not our fault, or perhaps because they think it's a lost cause, I don't know.

However, the considerable majority of scientists take the opposite point of view.

What I don't understand is what you, licker, or others in your position, believe motivates these scientists? Of course now it is a fairly standard belief, but originally it was a real maverick thing to believe in. So it's not just herd mentality or something like that. The only reason I can think you might have is that it's a conspiracy - but if you believe academia works in such a way that a majority of scientists can be coopted into a conspiracy then you are way off. And besides I can't imagine what the point behind such a conspiracy might be, being as taking action against global warming is bad for everyone's economies. So I assume you don't think that. Why, then, do you think this mad majority of scientists believe in these "flawed methodologies" and this "pure speculation"? I'm genuinely interested to know.

[Tifone]

So, I accept that there are quite a few scientists who don't believe that we can in any way alleviate global warming by cutting CO2 emissions, either because they believe it's not happening, because they think it's not our fault, or perhaps because they think it's a lost cause, I don't know.

...or some because they're paid by the oil majors... :D

(Some links already provided above)

To be sure, I am not for more pollution, but to think that we can somehow control the climate is pure nonsense.

Silver iodide used in cloud seeding can make it rain. As a random example. ;)

Reducing the pollution of gases which create the Greenhouse effect and the Ozone Depletion can reduce the man-induced increasing of temperatures.

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

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

No-"pure nonsense" and no sorcery. Just bare physics, really.

Or were you saying that we shouldn't have wiped out smallpox? OMG GENOCIDE!!!

See I can do it too ;)

As you are the one saying we shouldn't wipe out global warming like smallpox, yes you can do it too, but against yourself, my friend :D

[Tichy]

Perhaps I haven't been following this thread with the attention required to nail down every detail, but I have no idea what you're talking about at this point, licker.

The 'laws' I refer to in the analogy with murder are regulations undertaken to reduce harmful emissions. The strawman I'm talking about rises up in your latest post. It's the assumption you think your opponents hold, namely that we can somehow control the climate from the top-down. Thus you argue, impertinently: "We can't completely control it, therefore we shouldn't try."

Nobody's saying that we can control the climate. But we can control *our* behavior in order to put less stress on it. The fact that you seem to be in favor of at least some regulations like this make me unsure what you're after now, except for annoyance with Al Gore.

[Edi]

I'd just like to mention that Edi's post on page 5 was the most impressive thing I've seen today.

Edi is Finnish, ergo, not a native English speaker.

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.


Salute! :wave:
Thanks for the compliment. :)

I've read so much English down the years that I speak it at a native level unless we're talking about some very specific fields like medicine, advanced math, cooking and similar areas that I have not been exposed to that much.

I didn't even consider my post to be anything special, as about the only complex term it contains is 'albedo' (i.e. reflective capability).

[licker]

The 'laws' I refer to in the analogy with murder are regulations undertaken to reduce harmful emissions. The strawman I'm talking about rises up in your latest post. It's the assumption you think your opponents hold, namely that we can somehow control the climate from the top-down. Thus you argue, impertinently: "We can't completely control it, therefore we shouldn't try."

Where do I say anything like that? Indeed I believe I actually say the opposite, though my concern is not with what happens to a handful of species, since if your concern is generally for species you really have alot more work cut out for you than just worrying about ones negatively affected by warmer temperatures.

Nobody's saying that we can control the climate. But we can control *our* behavior in order to put less stress on it. The fact that you seem to be in favor of at least some regulations like this make me unsure what you're after now, except for annoyance with Al Gore.

Err...

I read these statements pretty clearly as people saying they want us to make the temperature go down. Not just stop going up. The contention is that our inputs to the climate may or may not have near the impact on this temperature change some people think it does. We are likely currently (and for the last 2 years now if not longer) in a cool down. What have we changed to contribute to this cool down? Nothing to do with CO2 obviously.

I am in favor of reducing the US demand on foreign sources of energy, I am in favor of reducing pollution generally (though CO2 is not technically a pollutant, it often accompanies other pollutants), and I am in favor of more personal responsibility for ones energy and material use.

None of that has anything to do with GW though as far as I am concerned, and the costs of preventing GW are greater than the costs of adapting or mitigating.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

[Tifone]

...CO2 is just the principal greenhouse gas in the earth atmosphere...

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

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

And as already tried to explain (but with little success I think) greenhouse effect *does* cool down the temperatures when year after year cold fresh air melting on the poles go to interfere and slow down important currents like the the north atlantic one (for diminished salinity of the ocean and counter-currents).

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

PS. Also, some temporary cool down is scientifically irrelevant and not contrary to the theory: - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777

PPS Oh about your last link. Nice finding of external source on the Wiki. But let's have fun and read the sentence that leads to it:

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, (and here is your link!) the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.(two links here showing the majority, and many others here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)

[cleveland]

Here's a useful guide for everyone to read up on and study the Flamewarrior classes so that they can better identify everyone and study up their foe's common tactics.

Illustrated Guide to Flamewarriors (http://www.flamewarriors.com/)

also, heres a short entry on Uncy with a nice flowchart to help you follow the flamewar resolution process.

Flamewar Dispute Resolution Flowchart (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/6/6f/Uncyclopedia_dispute_resolution_flowchart.png)


My favorite: http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm
I just can't stop laughing at that picture. And I can't help but think of a few Palookas around here... :D

[licker]

...CO2 is just the principal greenhouse gas in the earth atmosphere...

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

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

And as already tried to explain (but with little success I think) greenhouse effect *does* cool down the temperatures when year after year cold fresh air melting on the poles go to interfere and slow down important currents like the the north atlantic one (for diminished salinity of the ocean and counter-currents).

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

PS. Also, some temporary cool down is scientifically irrelevant and not contrary to the theory: - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777

CO2 is NOT the principle GHG, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that, but Methane and Water vapor dominate it either in concentration or green house activity.

Further the slow down to the gulf stream is not a global effect, and would have little to no effect on the SH where some of the largest cooldowns have been reported. However, I assume you will counter with antarctic melt.

However, if we look at heat as energy rather than temperature (since that is infact the correct way to look at it) if the atmosphere has been trapping more energy we should be able to find that energy somewhere, and lately, we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.

So we are probably left to agree with the scientist who are showing that the sun is by far the most important player in our climate (not that most people deny this, but some tend to downplay it), and there's really not a hell of a lot we can do to control the sun.

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, (and here is your link!) the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.(two links here showing the majority, and many others here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)

Ehh? I wasn't on the wiki at all for that. But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right? The point of that letter was quite clear in stating that the IPCC policy report is a highly flawed and totally politicized report. If you actually read the entire IPCC report you will likely get a different feel for the issue than if you just read the policy summary.

Further the commonly used IPCC report is now 4 years out of date, and the science reviewed in it even further out of date.

[Tifone]

Ahah, Edi's totally a: - http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm :D

[Tifone]

...we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.


Clearly wrong:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right?

Noo! Not by the vast majority of academic scientists for sure! ( http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 ; http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 )
The real science is only done by the few who uncovered THE CUNSPIRACYY! :cool:

http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/xfilesmulderandscully.jpg

[chrispedersen]

If we intend to be serious about stopping the man-made effect that contributes to (as opposed to being the sole cause of) global warming, all of us would have to take a massive hit into our lifestyles, is what he means, I suspect.

It just so happens that the 650 skeptics are a drop in a bucket compared to the larger body of climate scientists who have achieved a consensus that humans have a significant effect on global warming, increasing it. That's comparable to some intelligent design proponents who made a lo tof hay about some Steve somebody who was a scientist and backed their crazy ideas. An Australian organization of scientists signed up 700 scientists from that same field whose first name was Steve to refute his bull**** and in the glkobal warming discussion, the 650 denier scientists are a comparable example.

The primary cause of global warming is build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably CO2. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased fivefold in the last 150 years and almost all of that carbon has a radiological footprint of being millions or tens or hundreds of millions of years in age. That means that nearly all of it is of fossil origin, i.e. coal. Unless that is taken out of the atmosphere by some means, there is no way to return to the same mechanisms that caused the early medieval warm bump and the mini ice age in the 1600s.

The increase of the greenhouse gases leads to less reradiation of heat into space, so the earth absorbs more from the sun than it emits back out on the night side. Increase of temperature causes the ice caps to melt, which reduces albedo, which again reduces the amount reflected and reradiated out.

If there are slight dips and and bumps in a curve that overall has an upward trend, the individual dips and bumps don't mean much. Likewise, a transitory local weather phenomenon does not mean much, because the heat distribution throughout the world is not even by a long shot and local variation can be significant without impacting the overall trends at all.

There are also some other factors that cause variation. Large volcanic eruptions cool temperatures because of the obscuring effect the ash has on the sun, causing less heat to reach the ground. Another factor on the geological timescales is continental placement. The earth has been much warmer at some points, because during those periods there was no Central American isthmus to block the warm equatorial current that would have counteracted the effect of the cold currents circling Antarctica and some other continents were likewise in other places.

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

There are more than 11,000 sceptics, not 650.

I tend to agree carbon emissions ahve increased temperatures. However, I by no means accept it as fact.

Kind of doesn't matter, does it? We have to go on the best guess we have. Lots of scientists think CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming, then perhaps it behooves us to adopt nuclear energy.

[licker]

Clearly wrong about what?

That we cannot account for the loss of energy in the ice melt and decreasing temps?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the ice isn't melting, indeed, that is one place for the energy to go.

[Tifone]

@ chris - Or even better, energies which don't produce nuclear wastes! :)

@ licker - Clearly wrong about temperatures falling. Second link provided expecially => air temperatures

PS @ chris: could you please provide some link to the "more than 11,000" academic scientists which are skeptics about GW. Possibly something which shows their peer-rewied works on the matter. (Even better, if not payed for this by the Bush administration lol :D)

[licker]

Air temperatures from March...

Global temp fell almost .5C in 2007.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

Where did all the energy go?

Answer is it didn't come in the first place.

[Tifone]

Yeah, a graph about 12 months makes a whole lot of a difference. You are just rushing the science for your purpose.
Like JimMorrison said, and I said, not only one year can be cooler than another (chaotic nature of weather), but this is totally irrelevant in a trend showing on a long period of time. Single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/184932/56

Going to bed now. See ya tomorrow. :)

Don't have too much fun with snowballs without me!! :(

[thejeff]

<Trying and failing to stay out of this>

And how many of those "academic scientists" are actually climate specialists working in the field and not a geologist or something. Just being a generic scientist gives you no more credibility than any random fool posting on a blog.

[Tifone]

(thejeff a quotation would have helped... :) I've used the expression both referring to "GW-believers" -post 81- and "GW-unbelievers" -post 84- scientists. /about the former ones, you can eventually check the links/

Lol, believers and unbelievers. Sounds like a religious thread for real :D)

PS Oh about the water vapour argument licker called: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40

About the sun and cosmic rays, something interesting here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666

[licker]

Yeah, a graph about 12 months makes a whole lot of a difference. You are just rushing the science for your purpose.
Like JimMorrison said, and I said, not only one year can be cooler than another (chaotic nature of weather), but this is totally irrelevant in a trend showing on a long period of time. Single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/184932/56

Going to bed now. See ya tomorrow. :)

Don't have too much fun with snowballs without me!! :(

Single years? Though if you are claiming that the loss from 2007 is irrelevant due to it being only 12 months, why are you then trying to refute me by showing me data from ONE month? In any case, that data doesn't show what it seems you think it does.

So show me the trend since 1998 please. The point about '07 is that so much heat was lost that it essentially 'undid' all the warming from the past 10 years.

I don't know what this gristmill site is anyway, or why articles from 2006 are relevant, but I'll try to look at them when I have more time.

[Tifone]

I just find comfortable to link the gristmill site since it is are full of useful reliable scientific souces and charts.

The trend since 1998 is showed in SEVERAL of the links I already provided, you would do me a favour to read before posting, it's tiring and cumbersome to me to talk about the same thing again and again, and ultimately pointless if you don't read the answers I provide. Here it is again, with your theory nicely debunked:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

And again about your old "warmer is better" theory:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469

[Edi]

Ahah, Edi's totally a: - http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm :D
Hardly. Big cat mostly, perhaps big dog sometimes. In my usual haunts the regulars are just as likely as not to wipe the floor with me unless I stick to topics I really know about. And sometimes even then.

Energy balance is indeed the correct way to look at it.

The claim that the increase in temperature and overall energy is nowhere to be seen is incorrect. The average temperature of oceans has been rising. Coral die-offs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081210/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingcoral) are the primary evidence for this but not the only things. The northern ice caps melting is more. That we are seeing such apparently small increases in the ocean temperatures may seem no cause for concern, but this is a deceptive and dangerous notion.

The mass of the planet's oceans is several hundred orders of magnitude more than the mass of the atmosphere. The atmosphere has been warming up by a few degrees. The first ten feet of water in the oceans weighs the same as the atmosphere. There are roughly 300 times 10 feet in one kilometer, and most oceans are several kilometers deep. The fact that we are seeing measurable increase in their temperature should be a pretty damned scary statistic. There's a lot of mass, so it can absorb a lot of energy, but it also means that restoring the energy balance to the previous norms will also be slower and far more difficult.

I'd love to continue this further, but I have to go get some sleep. Night...

[licker]

Your link says nothing about warmer weather being 'worse', only that rapid change is potentially bad. Hardly the case you are representing.

Further your data is incomplete, it ignores 2007 and 2008.

You are indeed repeating the same thing quite a bit, but it's not providing the answers you seem to think it is, which is why I continue to pose the questions.

"
Grist: it's gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now -- or the planet gets it."

Err... so this is actually a rather biased site, and you are quoting to us from blogs.

Now there's nothing de facto wrong with that, but it should be put in the open.

[licker]

-edi

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Your comments please?

It is as I have claimed. The 'heat' is missing from the equation.

Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.

By the way... warmer ocean also means greater CO2 sink...

The planet is really quite remarkable at the ways it can seemingly balance itself (not that I'm a Gaiaian)

[llamabeast]

licker, I guess maybe you missed my last post in the flurry that followed it, but I'd really be honestly interested to hear - what, in your opinion, is the reason that so many scientists (certainly the enormous majority, but if that's in dispute let's just say really a lot) are concerned about global warming and think that taking action would be helpful. I'm just interested to know if you think they're all dumb, or they're part of a conspiracy, or they're over-excitable, or what.

[llamabeast]

Anyone remember Lord_Bob and his monkey PD? I think he was a Ferrous Cranus.

[Omnirizon]

-edi

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Your comments please?

It is as I have claimed. The 'heat' is missing from the equation.

Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.

By the way... warmer ocean also means greater CO2 sink...

The planet is really quite remarkable at the ways it can seemingly balance itself (not that I'm a Gaiaian)

Did you even read the article, or did you just jump on its title line and ignore the rest. Do you even understand how science works?

It's pretty clear that the scientists are working within the paradigm of global warming. The robots provide data that tests the paradigm and allows it to be further refined. nothing the robots said conclusively leaned one way or the other, in fact, in the light of other data, their reports seem very confusing. This either means they are faulty, the methodology of their deployment and recording is incomplete, or the theory of global warming needs to be further nuanced and additional variables accounted for.

While the theory is available to be nuanced, the rote "warming of the sun" is an irrelevant variable because it presumably effects all other variables, assuming its even true. Further, it smacks of a deus ex machina that just solves all problems, and forecloses the need for any further science (which is basically your tactic here). But let's take it seriously for a moment.

Here the oceans are rising, the air is getting warmer, but for some reason the oceans are cooling slightly. Yet you would eagerly jump on a theory that says "the sun is getting warmer" and then switch to a "the oceans are getting cooler" without realizing the salient inconsistency between the two. It is so entirely clear you only select data that supports your viewpoint, even when the bricolage of data you select contradicts itself. internal consistency of your data means nothing to you, only that each individual piece when taken alone seems to contradict GW. You've already decided a priori what you want to see, and you only look for data that supports it. Of course, this data inevitably contradicts itself.

Basically what you suggest is...


Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.


...lets just stop doing science and accept this one very marginal theory as true because it supports my viewpoints the best. It would be akin to the church telling Galileo to stop looking through his telescope and trying to solve eternal mysteries because he might disprove the Ptolemiac Astronomy system the church favored. Except in this instance the theory you're suggesting is already marginal.

so no scientists, don't continue investigating the mystery the robots posed, or trying to solve the problems they raised. just stop looking through your telescopes and trying to understand the world around you. we already have a theory that best supports those with power and money. anything else is just wrong. wag the dog.

Licker seems to lack the reflexivity to understand the game he is a pawn of.

[vfb]

"In New Orleans is the "USA common law system" in force? Oh damn, feel almost useless. :D"

Actually the 49 states, except Louisiana have the common law that is derived from England. Louisiana's system of law is derived from the French, whose law was derived
from the Romans. It is called the civil law.

As we are fond of saying here in Louisiana, the Romans had an advanced system of law when the barbarians in Britain were still throwing sticks and stones at each other. Obviously one system is superior to the other.:)

Holy Crap! Louisiana is Quebec, I never knew that. No wonder it's fun there. Besides the hurricanes, I mean. Are there Louisiana separatists too?

And was there really some sort of snowball lawsuit in the news or something? I'm slightly news (and lawsuit) deprived over here.

[chrispedersen]

@ chris - Or even better, energies which don't produce nuclear wastes! :)

@ licker - Clearly wrong about temperatures falling. Second link provided expecially => air temperatures

PS @ chris: could you please provide some link to the "more than 11,000" academic scientists which are skeptics about GW. Possibly something which shows their peer-rewied works on the matter. (Even better, if not payed for this by the Bush administration lol :D)

I cannot provide a link. However, a place to start would be Gore's movie. Many of the scientist quoted as supporting the theory of global warming have recanted.

The pedigree's of the people opposing global warming is significant. The director of NOAA atmospherics studies, Dr Gray of Colorado State, if I recall.

There have been several documentaries on both sides of the issue. One of these documentaries amassed a contrarian point of view to show that scientific opinion was hardly monolithic.

To say that it is categorical fact that CO2 emissions cause global warming, is frankly, ridiculous. To my knowledge, the theory hasn't even been tested; nor is it readily apparent how to test it.

But it doesn't matter, at least to me. Gravity is a theory. It fights the observable facts better than any other theory.

The theory of global warming gives suggests avenues to attack. Should these avenues not work, then the theory of warming caused by man made actions (notably co2 emissions) will be revisited. Or, if global temperatures start to fall.

However, people that propose CO2 warming like a religion scare me. We have thousands of years of history. I would bet that our present climate is WELL within statistical variance.

Hell, our planet has both been a hell hole - and ice covered - several times, in the not too distant (geologically speaking past).

But wouldn't be willing to take no action against global warming either.

[JimMorrison]

Can we shut up about 2007 and 2008 or "blah de blah, I want to look for an incrdibly short period of time, and say, THERE, it wasn't as warm right there!" .....


You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:

Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.


So, by studying the crust of the Earth, we can estimate global weather conditions going back at least 1000 years. I would tend to think this is more evidence of a trend than 1, or 2, or even 10 years in any specific point.



And just to clarify, if the Earth's temperature rises very much at all, very quickly, we also know through fossil evidence that this can cause -mass extinctions-. That is to say, entire food webs can collapse, and this can very profoundly effect the prosperity of the human race. You don't have to give a damn about those other species - beyond the fact that your very existence, in some way is reliant on the great majority of them, and the content of their life-cycle.

[Omnirizon]

Can we shut up about 2007 and 2008 or "blah de blah, I want to look for an incrdibly short period of time, and say, THERE, it wasn't as warm right there!" .....


You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:

Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.


So, by studying the crust of the Earth, we can estimate global weather conditions going back at least 1000 years. I would tend to think this is more evidence of a trend than 1, or 2, or even 10 years in any specific point.



And just to clarify, if the Earth's temperature rises very much at all, very quickly, we also know through fossil evidence that this can cause -mass extinctions-. That is to say, entire food webs can collapse, and this can very profoundly effect the prosperity of the human race. You don't have to give a damn about those other species - beyond the fact that your very existence, in some way is reliant on the great majority of them, and the content of their life-cycle.

WHAT!?!?

Where's your data for the last 3 hours? It dropped a couple of degrees here at my house in tha time alone. that's HUGE relative to the magnitude of change those quack scientists blaber on about. GLOBAL WARMING IS A SHAM!!!

[JimMorrison]

The pedigree's of the people opposing global warming is significant. The director of NOAA atmospherics studies, Dr Gray of Colorado State, if I recall.

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.

[MaxWilson]

licker, I guess maybe you missed my last post in the flurry that followed it, but I'd really be honestly interested to hear - what, in your opinion, is the reason that so many scientists (certainly the enormous majority, but if that's in dispute let's just say really a lot) are concerned about global warming and think that taking action would be helpful. I'm just interested to know if you think they're all dumb, or they're part of a conspiracy, or they're over-excitable, or what.

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

[licker]

Did you even read the article, or did you just jump on its title line and ignore the rest. Do you even understand how science works?

Well a bit rude, but from the rest of your post it appears I've somehow touched a nerve. I will do my best to respond kindly. But yes, I do understand how science works, I am in fact, an analytical chemist who has in the past studied atmospheric chemisty. Not that internet credentials are worth anything, but there you go.

It's pretty clear that the scientists are working within the paradigm of global warming.

Clearly, and this should be an issue if they are presupposing there results as you seem to be doing for them. In any case, paradigms have certainly shifted before, the question is how deeply scientist allow themselves to be immersed in the paradigm, and thus how likely they are to resist the actual data they measure which disagrees with their preconceived notions.

The robots provide data that tests the paradigm and allows it to be further refined. nothing the robots said conclusively leaned one way or the other, in fact, in the light of other data, their reports seem very confusing. This either means they are faulty, the methodology of their deployment and recording is incomplete, or the theory of global warming needs to be further nuanced and additional variables accounted for.

I'm sorry... nothing they said leans one way or the other??? Seriously, this is what you are saying? These robots measured NO temperature change, but rather than accept this 'surprising' (surprising because you have already decided what you expected to find) data as accurate you immediately assume it is somehow flawed. What do you base this on, other than that it doesn't support your current paradigm? Oh, you pay lip service to refining the theory of global warming, but I don't think you are intellectually honest when you say this. That is, you assume that GW is at this point an unstoppable force (considering we haven't taken whatever actions you think would stop it), so anomalous data needs to be somehow explained away or fit into the theory, rather than the theory being modified (or indeed rejected if needs be) as the data begins to unravel it.

While the theory is available to be nuanced, the rote "warming of the sun" is an irrelevant variable because it presumably effects all other variables, assuming its even true. Further, it smacks of a deus ex machina that just solves all problems, and forecloses the need for any further science (which is basically your tactic here). But let's take it seriously for a moment.

I would hardly call changes to the largest input to the system you are measuring 'irrelevant', nor is your supposition that it would affect all other variables true. How, for example, does the input of the sun affect the concentration of anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses?

But in any case I think you have misread me. I am clearly not calling for an end to investigations of climate, I am actually doing the opposite. I am saying that we need to be open to all of the various studies and datum we find, not working from our preconceived notion that we've already isolated the dependencies and therefore can ignore the rest.

Here the oceans are rising, the air is getting warmer, but for some reason the oceans are cooling slightly. Yet you would eagerly jump on a theory that says "the sun is getting warmer" and then switch to a "the oceans are getting cooler" without realizing the salient inconsistency between the two. It is so entirely clear you only select data that supports your viewpoint, even when the bricolage of data you select contradicts itself. internal consistency of your data means nothing to you, only that each individual piece when taken alone seems to contradict GW. You've already decided a priori what you want to see, and you only look for data that supports it. Of course, this data inevitably contradicts itself.

roflmao...

sorry, but your grasp of logic is severely lacking. Where did I say again that the sun is warming? Look closely and you'll see I imply the opposite. If the energy of the system (being the climate) cannot all be accounted for, and the other variables (GHGs primarilly) are constant or increasing, then it stands to reason that the INPUT has decreased. Of course following that with actually looking at sun activity shows that this is indeed the case, and allows one to postulate that the warming was largely the result of an 'overactive' (as a relative term) sun. There is no contradiction to be had here.

Basically what you suggest is...


Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.


...lets just stop doing science and accept this one very marginal theory as true because it supports my viewpoints the best. It would be akin to the church telling Galileo to stop looking through his telescope and trying to solve eternal mysteries because he might disprove the Ptolemiac Astronomy system the church favored. Except in this instance the theory you're suggesting is already marginal.

Ehh? You're off your rocker here. No where have I said we should stop doing science, indeed you are the one supporting the suppression of data which does not agree with your view of the system. I'm saying we need to actually do the science first, and do it right before letting people like Al Gore and the politicians writing policy summaries lead us blindfolded.

so no scientists, don't continue investigating the mystery the robots posed, or trying to solve the problems they raised. just stop looking through your telescopes and trying to understand the world around you. we already have a theory that best supports those with power and money. anything else is just wrong. wag the dog.

Licker seems to lack the reflexivity to understand the game he is a pawn of.

It's getting pathetic. You can try to put words in my mouth (so to speak) but the facts are that you have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted what I have been saying in some (one can only assume) zealous attempt to defend a world view not based so much on science as it is based on an agenda created by politicians and other non scientists putting together policy summaries for the IPCC.

The funny thing is that the power and money you think is so 'evil' is actually on your side of this argument right now. My opinion is that the power and money should butt the hell out and let the scientists actually get on with what they doing without the constant pressure (and I know these pressures all to well) to formulate your results before you actually have the data.

If anyone believes there is not alot of money at stake for these researchers (and yes that would apply from both sides of the debate) you are deluding yourselves.

[licker]

The pedigree's of the people opposing global warming is significant. The director of NOAA atmospherics studies, Dr Gray of Colorado State, if I recall.

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.

I would not imagine that anyone serious disagrees with the facts that it has gotten warmer, the question of interest is what caused the warm up, and what is causing it to have slowed/stopped?

[Omnirizon]

licker, I guess maybe you missed my last post in the flurry that followed it, but I'd really be honestly interested to hear - what, in your opinion, is the reason that so many scientists (certainly the enormous majority, but if that's in dispute let's just say really a lot) are concerned about global warming and think that taking action would be helpful. I'm just interested to know if you think they're all dumb, or they're part of a conspiracy, or they're over-excitable, or what.

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. As Kuhn points out, science is intrinsically conservative, it is very difficult to change paradigms. Basically, there simply has to be no place left to hide for one paradigm before another can take over; as long as there is doubt, the old ones will remain.

However, this means that when a paradigm falls out of favor, its out for good, and the one that replaces it has already undergone rigorous testing. Read up on the history of global warming and you will see that its ascension is fairly recent (as recent as the last half century). Before that, it was only one among a group of competing theories. The intrinsic conservatism of science that Kuhn talks about (and Popper sometimes laments) is in this case lending some favor for global warming and against its (ironically) conservative detractors.

What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming. typically, since the state controls the flow of money, it has a strong say over what is defined as "science". This is witnessed in virtually all social science from psychological testing to sociological tabulating: the state funds science and what ever gets funded becomes "science" while the rest becomes marginal. The almost reactionary attitude within science and pressure to accept global warming is a defense mechanism against this state intervention. without it, scientists would be easily bought by state money, and science itself would be defined by this money. In this sense, scientists have been taking the literature on science studies produced since Kuhn and up through constructionist like Latour very seriously. They know and are taking seriously the golden law: who has the gold makes the laws; even scientific ones. Science is in a double-bind: it can either opt for reactionary conservatism protecting its community production, or it can sell out to conservatism of the liberal economy (thats a twist, but yes its real. think neo-cons, its basically their game.)

As for whatever licker wrote. I'm not bothering to read it. I just think its funny to watch you go through the pains and spend all the time on carefully quoting everything I wrote and viciously rebutting it. This is game forum. Get real. No one here gives a ****. Not like what you say is actually going to change opinions. If you really gave a damn about science, then you should go get a PhD.

[licker]

As for whatever licker wrote. I'm not bothering to read it. I just think its funny to watch you go through the pains and spend all the time on carefully quoting everything I wrote and viciously rebutting it. This is game forum. Get real. No one here gives a ****. Not like what you say is actually going to change opinions. If you really gave a damn about science, then you should go get a PhD.

Well played... run away since you completely got it wrong... and hide behind the 'no one gives a ****' after you apparently gave one.

And what makes you think I don't have a PhD?

This is a game forum though, perhaps you should have checked your tone in your initial post to me, perhaps not. I don't really care, I can keep the game separate from the rest of this, but I don't mind a little provocative discourse either.

[licker]

Anyway, I propose we settle this on the field of battle!

You can take whatever heat loving nation you like and I will play some cold loving nation, then we'll see just who's got the right of it! ;)

For better results we should put some neutral nations in the middle and see if we can cause some extinctions...

[Omnirizon]

that sounds tempting. I'm already involved in two games though, and that's about my limit.

I'll take a rain check though :)

[licker]

Yeah, i'm a bit loaded up at the moment and about to leave for a 2 week vacation.

Perhaps in January we should arrange a battle of hot vs. cold?

No reason to limit the fun to just the 2 of us anyway :)

[Trumanator]

Don't forget to rename all important commanders after scientists that support your view. And make sure to post AARs in character.

[JimMorrison]

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.


First, to address your second point: Again, we have had 2 similar troughs in the past 150 years that we have detailed figures. A 10 year trough, in the geological time scales we are working with, does not in any way indicate that this trend is "over". We are still in a 1000 year+ warming trend, and this is consistent, over this timeframe.

Second, to your first point: I don't think you read my previous posts. I don't completely agree with the causes, at least, not as valid reasoning for humanity to approach the issue with clear intent. The fact is, if global temperatures were to shift down OR up by about 5°, the human race with less than 7 billion people on the planet, will be greatly imperiled. Regardless if you think that any given country or region could persist through such calamity, I can only assure you that it's psychotic not to entertain the notion that eventually the famines and wars would lead to nuclear aggression = the end of the world as we know it.

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity. What matters is the human species rising to meet this problem head on, because we will have to find ways to deal with a little turbulence here or there, if we want to survive for longer than a quarter million years.

[JimMorrison]

Anyway, I propose we settle this on the field of battle!

You can take whatever heat loving nation you like and I will play some cold loving nation, then we'll see just who's got the right of it! ;)

But wait, I thought you were the heat lover, and he wanted things colder? ;)

[MaxWilson]

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. *snip*
What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming.

You're right, that is kind of weird, and there probably is more to it than Kuhnianisms. I can think of a couple more factors that might be contributing: one is that there are state actors (Maldive islands) who actually have an incentive to push the fear of warming-driven disaster scenarios (which requires warming). More importantly, there's an unexplained datum, which is the warming trend of the last century. Ignatz Semmelweiss' problem was that he could show a causative link empirically (basic hygiene reduces iatrogenic childbed fever dramatically), but he had no theory to explain the causation. Only after germ theory was invented did his data gain widespread credibility. In theory science is about understanding the universe, which sometimes means understanding that you don't understand it; in practice people like to have explanations even if they're wrong. The GCMs climatologists use aren't high-quality models, but they can be tweaked to explain away the puzzling recent warming trend. Acknowledging the actual uncertainty in the system is too difficult, especially if that threatens your livelihood. Better to keep on studying and publishing on GCMs, even if they don't correspond to reality.

Feynman says scientific honesty is much harder than regular honesty. It takes a certain amount of brutality to say to yourself that the field you're studying really isn't going anywhere, in which case you'll probably leave. Therefore, it makes sense to pay attention to cross-disciplinary debates. Here's a link to an issue of APS Physics featuring debate on global change: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm.

-Max

[llamabeast]

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

[Poopsi]

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity.

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.

[JimMorrison]

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity.

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.


I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

[licker]

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

Yes, sorry, I sort of addressed it elsewhere, and so did Max(?), but I'll try to do better.

I have seen first hand funding being denied or removed if the proposed research would seem likely to be at odds with some other agenda (usually non scientific). As I commented somewhere, in the case of GW this is true from both sides of the specturm, and is something I find personally abhorrent.

Further the direct funding issue with the notion of paradigms Omni and others are discussing and when you look at where the funding is coming from, you often have to couch your proposal in friendly terms to the organization handing out the money (think IPCC here, also oil companies, though they have 'come around' lately anyway and are really no longer a factor in this debate).

So if you are interested in doing climate research, and you have publicly been critical of the GW theories as pushed by the IPCC, you are less likely to receive funding for basically any research in that area. At least funding from organizations whom support the IPCC, so there is some impetus to accept the popular theory and just run with it.

Most good scientists do not invest their research with the politics of the day, but some do, and some are pressured to (I have seen this from DHS...).

So does that address your question? You can call it peer pressure if you like, but the field of climate science is (or was) a fairly small and insular one, and as such the breaking of the GW paradigm is very difficult to do internally.

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

I disagree. Acting before we understand the causes is just as likely to do ill as it is to do good. Look at DDT as a clear example where acting before all relevant information was in place as a case in point. (and yes, DDT is 'bad' but the alternative, malaria, is worse).

I agree that we need to be looking at mitigation and adaptation technologies though, but those are beside the point of whether the temperature is going up or down.

[llamabeast]

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

[llamabeast]

Also, thanks for your response. For someone with infuriating views you're very coherent! :) (teasing)

[Tichy]

Hi Llamabeast: The Project Steve thing isn't about climate change. It's evolution.

Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[MaxWilson]

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

Again, speaking for myself and not for licker: I'm not in a position to evaluate the history of the climate change theory. I do know that catastrophism has been around for a while (global cooling was the big fear in the 1960s, although it got less press than global warming does today), but I don't know how or whether global warming grew out of that specifically. I do know that I've listened to the arguments on both sides, and the evidence for catastrophic climate change is weak. I don't know whether that means it's always been weak, which I think is what you're asking.

-Max

[llamabeast]

Ah, I misremembered about Project Steve! Thanks Tichy. Wrong frustrating debate.

Max: I guess in that case, I'm interested to know the same thing as with licker. Regardless of whether the evidence seems strong or weak to you, why do you think it is that so many scientists sign up to fearing climate change, when doing so is really to everyone's disadvantage (assuming it's not really true)?

[MaxWilson]

I don't know how much I can add to my previous posts, but to recap, there are several contributing factors:

1.) Many of them don't.
2.) Just because I think the evidence is weak doesn't mean everyone will think the same. I think you can have legitimate disagreement here.
3.) There are outside pressures. Many of the ones that don't keep relatively quiet and just keep working in their own fields--not everyone is a crusader, and it doesn't pay to rock the boat.
4.) Sociological factors. Humans in general have trouble differentiating real uncertainty from statistical uncertainty, and scientific honesty is hard (but vital). This is not to say that only one side of the debate is scientifically honest (see points #1 and #2), just that there's likely to be a lot of noise in the data if you're trying to judge truth by consensus. It's much better to judge truth by evidence.

Let me turn your question around: why was Ignatz Semmelweiss a pariah for decades in the medical community, when listening to him was really in everyone's best interest? (To the extent that his discovery, today, would elicit nothing but "Duh. Of course washing your hands reduces infection rates.")

-Max

[Omnirizon]

what is 'real uncertainty' vs 'statistical uncertainty'?

what is 'evidence'? what comprises evidence? how do you decide what is admitted as evidence and what isn't?

what is the connection between real/statistical uncertainty and evidence?

[MaxWilson]

You can read up on real vs. statistical uncertainty here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM1829-1/

It's free.

-Max

[Omnirizon]

I've studied the classics already, from the MX missile debates and more, but thanks. I just want to see if you understand how this relates to what you are saying, or if you just regurgitate misinformation you read elsewhere.

[cleveland]

Omni: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/philosopher.htm

;)

[MaxWilson]

I've studied the classics already, from the MX missile debates and more, but thanks. I just want to see if you understand how this relates to what you are saying, or if you just regurgitate misinformation you read elsewhere.

Well, that makes me glad I gave you such short shrift.

-Max

[llamabeast]

Thanks for the answer Max.

Let me turn your question around: why was Ignatz Semmelweiss a pariah for decades in the medical community, when listening to him was really in everyone's best interest? (To the extent that his discovery, today, would elicit nothing but "Duh. Of course washing your hands reduces infection rates.")

Well, I think it's obviously the case that there can be enormous inertia in the scientific community, such that obviously correct things can sometimes be resisted for a long time. I definitely wouldn't claim that the scientific consensus is always correct.

However, this is kind of the opposite, in that a very large number of scientists have started believing in a new theory (manmade global warming) and abandoned the status quo to do so. People didn't believe in it in, say, the 70s, and it wasn't a very nice thing to start believing in either. I understand that the early proponents of manmade global warming experienced considerable resistance to their ideas, as you'd expect. But now, I think it's fair to say that a majority of scientists and public bodies accept manmade global warming. Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

I suppose my approach in thinking about this is really to look at the trends in people's beliefs rather than the science itself, at least for the sake of this discussion. I actually had a course in atmospheric chemistry in my undergrad chemistry degree at cambridge, and it was made completely clear that climate change was a real issue, the whole background was explained, and it seemed entirely non-controversial. Of course, it could easily be argued that my lecturers were biased, or misled. Whoever gives the information can make a convincing case in either direction (in a matter with so very much evidence, it is easy to find enough to thoroughly support either side which makes it all but impossible to judge the validity of presented arguments). So this brings me back to the question of why there should be so many biased/misled scientists who believe in this rather uncomfortable idea of manmade global warming in the first place.

[Omnirizon]

I've studied the classics already, from the MX missile debates and more, but thanks. I just want to see if you understand how this relates to what you are saying, or if you just regurgitate misinformation you read elsewhere.

Well, that makes me glad I gave you such short shrift.

-Max

TAke yourself seriously then, be reflexive rather than just destructive.

There are scientists who are trapped in some kind of structure. They have no agency. They say what they say because the 'structure' they are embedded in tells them to.

What about MW. Why does MW say what he says? What do you want to accomplish?

[llamabeast]

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

[MaxWilson]

Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

You know, llamabeast, I don't know. I'm not much of a scientific historian. (I mean, I could say "what about phrenology?" but I don't know whether it ever caught on to the degree you're asking for.) If you were to go looking for precedent, you'd probably have to look in a field that has the salient characteristics of climatology: the subject is too complex for experimental study, so experiments focus on studying the behavior of simplified models of the subject. The only other field I know of like that is economics, but as I said I don't know much about the history of economic theory so I don't know whether it's experienced fads.

-Max

[licker]

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

Actually I do not think there was much peer pressure from the 'denier' side ever. There was repression from the Bush administration though, to me that is different from peer pressure. You have to realize that GW is a reletively new phenomena. It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it, and at that time there was much less (basically zero) research to support any position. It is in many ways a 'boom industry' and for that reason there is money thrown at it, and for that reason you have a certain group who doesn't want off the gravy train. These are the people I detest, because they are not doing science for science sake, they are perpetrating an exaggeration for their own ends. The peer pressure has nothing to do with saving face (though most research scientists are horrible ego maniacs), and everything to do with keeping funding.

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

I am likewise mystified that people consider themselves strongly in that camp. However, I realize from reading the IPCC reports that they do a good job of spinning their case. I also realize that many people seem to think humans can actually control (as opposed to affect) the climate, though that notion is completely daft.

I also do not like the use of the word 'belief'. Indeed 'belief' has no place in science, either you have the evidence or you don't. As soon as people start throwing around 'belief' and 'faith' it's become a personal sort of religion, and this is why to a large extent I remain utterly skeptical of the AGW believers. They also usually don't help their cause when they behave as Omni has been behaving, alot of hostility, but no support for his position. When someone is incredulous at someone elses 'belief' (for lack of a better word atm...) and cannot provide any kind of meaningful argument you have to really wonder what their level of understanding of the theory is (and this is not directed at Omni, this is a personal observation I have made in discussions with several AGW supporters).

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

Heh, well I'm a pretty far way from Edinburgh, but thanks for the invite :)

Yes the steve thing had to do with Intelligent Design I believe, out of australia or something like that.

[JimMorrison]

...It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it...

Quote from - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/04/25/050425fa_fact3

[quote=New_Yorker]The National Academy of Sciences undertook its first rigorous study of global warming in 1979. Mentions studies by Syukuro Manabe and James Hansen. The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, headed by Jule Charney, found that if carbon dioxide emissions continued to increase, the climate changes would be severe. It’s now 25 years since that report was issued, and, in that period, carbon-dioxide emissions have increased from 5 billion a year to 7 billion, and the earth’s temperature has steadily risen. The world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last 2 millennia.[quote]

[licker]

Fair enough, I should not have said 'anyone'.

There was very little research going on on the subject was my point, for whatever the theories at the time were.

James Hanson is an interesting fellow, do you know his history with GW?

[Omnirizon]

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

et tu brute! I thought we were on the same side llama

actually I did mean it that way.:troll:
any intelligence was pure coincidence.


the real reason MW won't respond to my questions is due to the fundamental problem of using a social constructionist argument to attack a position you disagree with. It's like throwing rocks from a glass house.

[Omnirizon]

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

and actually llama, MW was patronising first when he dodged my question by posting a link to literature on it. The tone and specificity of that question should have made it very clear that I'm more than familiar with the literature.

I wanted MW to show a grasp of what he talks about by applying it to the argument, rather than just mentioning the concept. MW is talking tropes, llama, and any fool can do that by just regurgitating what he is spoonfed. I want him to show that he understands what he's saying by applying it to the argument.

but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle. I would actually theorize that the reason we see the anti-GW/GCM crowd doing the most talking is because it is only in OT threads on internet forums that they can somehow 'win' their battle. so put another notch on the keyboard there Big Dogs, because your ****ing 'flamewarriors' talking about GW in a place where no one gives a damn what you have to say.



In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.

[cleveland]

"Modelers generally agree that the climate system is a chaotic system in both a technical and practical sense, rendering short-term weather patterns unpredictable beyond a few weeks." (pg 899)

How true that is.

Since the venerable Dick Goddard (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=34719980) can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "Based on my sophisticated computational model, the 2027 global climate will be [insert stupid opinion here] <insert stupid="" opinion="" here="">."

Even the simplest weather models are chaotic - i.e. extremely sensitive to initial conditions. No dungeon master worth his twenty-sided die believes the outcome of this roll can be predicted.

----------------

Heat is a different story, though. Heat ("q" from thermo) can only added to the planet from a) cosmic (specifically Solar) radiation, and b) terrestrial release (e.g. burning the Cretaceous period). q can only be shed by radiation.

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

The effect of that increased q is (obviously) quite debatable, however.</insert>

[thejeff]

Climate is actually simpler than weather. At least since you're looking for less detail in the prediction.

To extend your example, would it make sense to say, Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "despite our current cooling trend, the temperature will rise into the 90s by next August."

[Tifone]

Damn ya Fahrenheiters!! Go Centigrades!!! :p

[llamabeast]

Heat is a different story, though. Heat ("q" from thermo) can only added to the planet from a) cosmic (specifically Solar) radiation, and b) terrestrial release (e.g. burning the Cretaceous period). q can only be shed by radiation.

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

The effect of that increased q is (obviously) quite debatable, however.

Thanks, that's exactly what I've been meaning to say. i.e. regardless of the (enormously complex) details, we are definitely trapping more heat in the atmosphere (non-controversial I think?) and one way or another, that's bound to have some big effects. Big effects are most likely bad news.

[licker]

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

Then why were you rude? Because you are a rude guy?

but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle.

The irony is quite amusing. Considering you are the primary person in this thread throwing flames.

In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.

The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including:

·political science, sociology, economics

·history, philosophy, psychology

·social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines

Oh my, I can see why this journal would be chock full of information on climate science...

Have you read the IPCC reports? And not just the summary report, the whole big thing? I don't know, but I find it amusing that you are acting like some big tough 'flamewarrior' while calling everyone else who happens to disagree with the premise you support whatever names you want.

Anyway, out of idle curiosity what is your background Omni? Are you involved in some field related to climatology?

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

Well except that lately we cannot find the extra 'q' in the places we think it should be (oceans primarily, as the atmospheric heating doesn't account for the projections). So you may want to rethink your supposition that the heat flux from the sun is (or has been) indeed constant. Beyond which you still need to find the mechanisms for previous hot and cold periods without human influence (and yes, the planet has had higher CO2 concentrations before...).

Following your statements rigidly leads to a particular conclusion, true, however, I challenge that your statements are actually born out in observable evidence.

[Omnirizon]

congratulations licker!!! YOU WIN!

[Tifone]

Oh, c'mon, we can't let him win! :D

For his own ammission, he didn't read a word of the scientifical souces provided. He posted only that article that was saying the opposite of what he was thinking (the scientists saying the reports of the robots was a phenomenon to study and broaden, him thinking that it was the great proof of "there is not heat" - also while I had provided articles showing that some local cooling being irrelevant).
As source we have only his own word on the topic (not a graph, not an unbiased article) and his belief that thousands of adult, top-intelligent scientists lie and don't really think what they say about this vital phenomenon, because they fear the other childr... ehm the peer review :p

(Not to sound rude myself too, licker, that's just random thoughts) ;)

[licker]

I know I win, thanks for admitting it.

Anyway, I've posted links to studies showing the temperature drops, I've discussed the findings and why omni was wrong in his assumptions about my positions.

If anyone isn't reading all the information available it's clearly not me, but as omni points out so eloquently...

Some people in this thread don't care about the research, they just care about flaming.

Tifone-

Do you really think I said any of that? Or are you just spinning to what you want to hear?

I've looked at your sources and realized they were not scientific in nature, you do realize this yourself right? So there's nothing wrong with looking at them, but you shouldn't just leave it at that.

Anyway as far as the robot findings are concerned, you really should read that article again, as it appears you have completely missed the point. It was not 'some local cooling' it was over 3000 robots world wide. And they didn't find (much) cooling either.

Seriously what filter do you run information through when you process it?

And when some one says 'not to <foo>' clearly they are fulling intending to <foo>. That's ok, like I said, I can keep it seperate from the game (since we're still on the dominions forum) and I don't mind a provocative discussion, I just find it amusing to see you and omni doing exactly what you are accusing me and others of.

Hypocrite much?

Well maybe that's not fair, maybe you and omni just don't have the backgrounds to understand what this debate is really about. I don't know and I don't really care. But if you aren't actually going to show evidence for your claims about what you imagined I said then I'm not going to bother to take your interpretations of some blogs seriously.

And if that sounds rude it probably is.

[MaxWilson]

As source we have only his own word on the topic (not a graph, not an unbiased article) and his belief that thousands of adult, top-intelligent scientists lie and don't really think what they say about this vital phenomenon

It's actually sufficient that some of them don't say what they think. (Others say what they think in the report and let UN bureaucrats write the summary and shift decimal places around to exaggerate what they think.) How many people spoke out against eugenics in Nazi Germany?

Oops, I killed the thread. :)

-Max

[Omnirizon]

way to kill the thread MW...

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)

[MaxWilson]

Yes, I couldn't resist.

[Executor]

I've been reading this thread for the last hour when I should have been studying. I blame you all for that, however It was interesting reading your arguments about GW.

[JimMorrison]

For the past 48h I've been on the edge of my seat waiting for Godwin. :P What an epic name.


Anyway, kudos all. I am amazed that you can stare analysis in the face that show that the Earth is warmer than it has been in a thousand(s) years, probably since the last ice age, but we can't accurately verify that..... yet still you continue to bicker about scientific process, and the apparent "trend" of the last several years.

Once a scientist has defined "2", even a layperson can add it to itself, if just stop arguing for long enough.

[Tifone]

I've looked at your sources and realized they were not scientific in nature, you do realize this yourself right? So there's nothing wrong with looking at them, but you shouldn't just leave it at that.


Yeah, I'm sure all those links that gristmill provides to scientific studies and graphs made by NASA, WWF, EPA, American Meteorological Society, National Academy of Sciences and many others are not nough for you, they're so less "scientific in nature" than your claims.

And if that sounds rude it probably is.

But it's ok to be rude with me, tough man, I'm not thin-skinned. Just be sure you're not over-compensating. :rolleyes:

[Tifone]

Oh, but who do I want to tease? I hate quarreling :( Metaphorical beer together guys? :cheers:

I offer the first round!

MaxWilson :beer:
Omnirizon :beer:
Licker :beer:
Edi :beer:
JimMorrison :beer:
thejeff :beer:
sum1lost :beer:
Illuminated One :beer:
cleveland :beer:
Tichy :beer:
Executor :beer:
llamabeast :beer:
Me :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:


Forgot someone? :p (*hic*)

[llamabeast]

Don't I get a beer?

[Tifone]

Yep, added. I knew I was gonna forgot someone :D Salute!

(and salute to the polar bears and pandas too :cry:)

PS: Hey, my beers evaporated!! That's global warming!! (*hic*) :p

[JimMorrison]

PS: Hey, my beers evaporated!! That's global warming!! (*hic*) :p

There is a competing theory that those beers sublimated down your throat. :o

[MaxWilson]

Oh, but who do I want to tease? I hate quarreling :( Metaphorical beer together guys? :cheers:

I offer the first round!

MaxWilson :beer:


I appreciate the gesture, but I actually don't drink. (I'm Mormon.) Can I have a root beer?

-Max

[Tifone]

Oh, of course, excusez moi :D Some pie too? :cake:

One for Soyweiser too I suppose! :beer:

[Soyweiser]

Oh, of course, excusez moi :D Some pie too? :cake:

One for Soyweiser too I suppose! :beer:

I thanked you for trying to stop the discussion.

What spells are a available to a lvl 1 beer mage? ;)

[Edi]

No idea. I'm more proficient in the use of spirit magic, where strong spirits are used as ingredients. Said ingredients to be consumed by caster during spellcasting, naturally. :D

[Stavis_L]

[QUOTE=Tifone;660188]
What spells are a available to a lvl 1 beer mage? ;)

Hrm...

Belch of Poisonous Vapours (fear effect, limited range, caster not immune)
Boozy Aura (standard effect, but only for other imbibers)
Beer Goggles (-10 precision, +10 morale)

Of course, every beer mage aspires to the apex of alcoholic pyrotechnics:

Flaming Orifice (effects better left undescribed)

:)

[Tifone]

Now we're so OT we can see the forum of the Guinness beer from here :D

[krpeters]

Thanks, that's exactly what I've been meaning to say. i.e. regardless of the (enormously complex) details, we are definitely trapping more heat in the atmosphere (non-controversial I think?) and one way or another, that's bound to have some big effects. Big effects are most likely bad news.

This is where I think a lot of people are missing the boat... why is no one looking at global warming as an opportunity?

*Rapid* big effects are most likely bad news... but *slow* big effects can be great. Imagine Canada and Russia being as warm and fertile as North Carolina or France today! OK, yeah, Bangladesh might sink, but if we can get our act together we could invite all those Bangladeshi farmers to the fertile plains of Siberia to grow crops there instead...

It doesn't *have* to be a disaster if it's managed right!

[MaxWilson]

On Russian agriculture: http://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news-sunspots-agriculture.html

In particular, Russia is trying to develop its agricultural industry: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/11/russia_break_out_the_sickles.html

-Max

[Executor]

"*Rapid* big effects are most likely bad news... but *slow* big effects can be great. Imagine Canada and Russia being as warm and fertile as North Carolina or France today! OK, yeah, Bangladesh might sink, but if we can get our act together we could invite all those Bangladeshi farmers to the fertile plains of Siberia to grow crops there instead..."

That depend on how much the sea level rises. Americas west coast, Indonesia, I'm sure there are some other places besides Bangladesh that would sink

[JimMorrison]

Besides the fact, you are at a net loss, without a doubt.

Let us forget about the insane cost to displace -billions- of people because their home is now inhospitable to human life.

Let's ponder the implications of those people having to migrate not just uphill, but into other people's lands. Can you even imagine how many people, how many population centers, would be directly and adversely affected by rising sea levels, in India and China alone? I am sure that all of those Russian farmers will be -so excited- when millions of starving, desperate, impoverished, and possibly diseased Chinese start pouring over their borders.

Maybe, have you given a thought to how many people in Europe, and in fact the entire world, live in coastal regions? Or perhaps how many people live in Mexico on the very edge of regional climactic extremes? What will the US do when Mexico has to move north or die? Will we just give them the lower states, and annex Canada?

If sea levels rise enough to begin threatening the lives, homes, and livelihoods of many millions of people, you can bet that it will only lead to war - and not just little pissy wars that America likes to start - a big war, that will necessarily involve everyone, and sadly probably degenerate to the point that someone like North Korea or Pakistan decides to go nuclear.


There is no silver lining to global climate change. Oh wait, there is one - if we annihilate our entire species, don't worry, because there will likely be enough genetic and organic material left over that another sentient species should evolve within 10-20 million years, I'm sure. That's a drop in the bucket, thankfully.

I just love the typical conservative attitude "well, if it's good for business today, it must be best for everything tomorrow!". Just fish around for some completely ignorant person to say that he is doing just as well or better than before, and suddenly you have a case for ignoring the ruination of the world. It has worked for us for at least a hundred years now, no reason to rock that boat, eh?

[Omnirizon]

On Russian agriculture: http://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news-sunspots-agriculture.html

In particular, Russia is trying to develop its agricultural industry: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/11/russia_break_out_the_sickles.html

-Max



whoa! so I can just write anything I want in a blog somewhere, and then I'm able to cite it as worthwhile opinion?

the internets is amazing!

[MaxWilson]

If anyone but Omni doesn't understand why I included a link to my own blog in response to krpeters' comments, I apologize and will try to be more clear next time.

[JimMorrison]

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore. :shock:

[tgbob]

Looks like someone just cast Wolven Winter on the San Francisco bay area too.

[licker]

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore. :shock:

*chuckle*

What's the point in arguing?

If you want to enjoy some quality flame time I can point you to any number of lightly moderated places where you can get off your jollies.

I would imagine that any responses to your pointless and baseless fearmongering wouldn't be appropriate here. ;)

[JimMorrison]

There's not any actual "flaming" until you use terminology like "pointless and baseless fearmongering".

All you had to say was that you had no possible way to debate the point. That you agree that it would be a catastrophe beyond your reckoning if even 10% of the tropical/subtropical/coastal peoples of the world were displaced, and/or if any significant amount of the far northern land that is becoming arable, merely mirrors a similar amount of previously marginal land that becomes unusable.

It pains me every time I see a human being who is so shortsighted, that they don't think there is any potential set of circumstances that they themselves might help arrange, which could completely and irrevocably change the world that they live in. It is that level of ignorance that leaves us with a body public who are mainly divided among 2 camps - those who would jolly drive us off of a cliff because they refuse to admit it exists, and those who have become too timid and numb to actually stop it from happening before it's too late.

[licker]

I stand by what I said.

Pointless and baseless fearmongering FTW!!!

By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...

All more likely than your doomsday scenario. I suppose you have thoughts on those issues?

[Tifone]

licker, your answers sometimes presuppose links in the neural network beyond human comprehension :shock: I can't understand really why you answer to serious, science-supported concerns about the foreseeable future, with FTWs and exclamation marks and unrelated matters and invitations to other users to "find other forums for that" (which would eventually be the job of the admins -who are also partecipating the discussion- , in case you missed the memo ;) ).

-

On another topic, I actually think that krpeters's post was a joke... Thanks to Jim for having made clear the absurdity of the whole thing anyway :)

@ Max... are you auto-quoting yourself as a source?? :D

[Soyweiser]

Looks like someone just cast Wolven Winter on the San Francisco bay area too.

Somebody has cast mist on the Netherlands.


By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...


I hope you don't seriously think that in the next 100 years it is more likely to be killed by a asteroid than by global warming or another form of man-made pollution.

[JimMorrison]

I stand by what I said.

Pointless and baseless fearmongering FTW!!!

By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...

All more likely than your doomsday scenario. I suppose you have thoughts on those issues?

All you're doing is trolling now.

In case you haven't been on the internet long enough yet, let me clarify for you - mocking me only shows that you are incapable of continuing with reasonable debate. This generally can only stem from one of two reasons: a)my assertions are true enough but you don't want to admit it, or b)you are out of your depth, and incapable of continuing with a reasonable and meaningful discussion.

[Executor]

I agree with Jim. Even one single small event can change the entire world.

[cleveland]

:sucks:


:dito:

[Aapeli]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to keep track on this discussion but it seems that the topic has changed a little from the original. The overall pattern as far seems to bee Snow in New Orleans-> Global warming, true or false?-> Beer and how its related to dominions.

Either way I would just like to say that it sucks that its not snowing in Finland and I'm truly jealous for you people there. So far the only one to blame is global warming so I shall blame global warming. Damn you for not letting me skate and ski and sue someone for snowballs.

[Omnirizon]

I hope this doesn't get me banned. but I just have to say:

****Image removed by Annette****

[SlipperyJim]

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore. :shock:
Since you seem to be curious, I don't bother to debate certain issues on Teh Internetz unless some circumstance forces my hand. Global Warmism (and environmentalism, generally) belongs on that list. Religion and politics are the other topics I don't usually discuss online.

For an example of why, I refer you back to the highly-OT Bible discussion thread a while ago. I think we had a good discussion. My chief purpose was to dismantle a few stereotypes that the media has created. I don't know how well I succeeded, but I believe that I encouraged at least a few people to think beyond the cliche of evangelical Christians as being toothless, ignorant bigots.

Still, that thread took a lot of my time. Hours per day. The effort wasn't sustainable in the long term, and I had to retire from the discussion. Also, while we did a good job of remaining civil, the thread was starting to devolve. Much longer, and I think we would have had a flame war going. Better to let the matter drop before that happens!

To recap, I don't debate Global Warmism online because:

It's too time-intensive, and
People get too hot about it, so the threads tend to degenerate into flaming.

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you. :)

[Soyweiser]

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you. :)

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy ;), all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

[MaxWilson]

@ Max... are you auto-quoting yourself as a source?? :D

Looks like I should have explained better after all. krpeters said, "Why does no one talk about benefits of warming to agriculture in Russia and Canada?" I intended to say, "Here's some numbers I cranked earlier this year, and a source I found useful." Looks like I was overly terse, even though I did also include a link directly to the source.

Of course, if you don't know who Thomas Barnett is, you may not have found the source useful either.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy ;), all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

[Omnirizon]

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy ;), all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

The functioning of Maverni inside a closed system that is very easy to grasp and which has a significant effect on the way people play a game.

vs.

The functioning of climate change in an open system that career scientists spend their entire lives attempting to grasp and which guides policy decisions that have significant effects on culture, capital, and lifestyles.


Ok I see your point now. perfectly analogous.

consequently, I should mention the major salience of the debate has nothing to do with whether their is actually global warming, but rather it cleaves along lines of "americans need to change their lifestyles" vs. "the rest of the world needs to change theres, or no one need change at all." As evidence, I offer only the rhetoric in this thread. Notice the consistency of those who insist GW is a problem, versus the the movement between several arguments of those who do not think it is a problem. From the latter, we see everything from there is no GW, to the sun is causing GW (thus we can't stop it with our actions) to GW is happening but is a good thing. In all of these cases, also notice that the consequence of the "truth" about GW, or lack thereof, is always to allow _americans_ to retain their lifestyles and consumption patters; on top of that sometimes the rest of the world will be required to make a large change (such as Bangledesh farmers moving to Siberia). Whatever the argument chosen and its ultimate effect on policy, it is never the americans that need to make a change.

Think about it. or just think at least. I see very little of that actually happening.

[Ylvali]

The bottom line for me is this.

Regardless of discussions like this, regardless of who is right. There is NO valid argument to further delay a switch to ecologically sustainable way of life.

We don´t need to agree on the scientific details about how severe a threat global warming is, why can´t we just agree to stop destroying the planet anyhow? There is an abundance of arguments for that besides global warming and few against.

[JimMorrison]

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore. :shock:
Since you seem to be curious, I don't bother to debate certain issues on Teh Internetz unless some circumstance forces my hand. Global Warmism (and environmentalism, generally) belongs on that list. Religion and politics are the other topics I don't usually discuss online.


Well I made that post specifically, because others were still arguing amongst themselves, but something odd had happened - my last few posts got no response whatsoever. Usually the "opposition" hops in to say I am wrong, but no one was doing so, and I wanted to know why. :p

I like discussing and debating. The curious thing, is that most forums are organized for a certain segment of the population, and either most agree with eachother to a great degree, or everything that is strictly off topic is completely out of bounds, period.

If anyone knows of a place where people debate such things in a healthy manner, I'd check it out. Though it seems silly if the point is debating such issues, as I would get told off for starting a "new" GW thread instead of searching for the old one, and my first post would be on page 312. :p

[Soyweiser]

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.


Regardless of discussions like this, regardless of who is right. There is NO valid argument to further delay a switch to ecologically sustainable way of life.

Actually there is. Economic costs. Switching to ecologically sustainable way of life now, with our current technology, could be more expensive than waiting a few years for better research and retooling the entire world then. Say if we wait for fusion technology, or the next generation solar cells, it will all be better.

(I don't agree with it, but it is an argument).

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

(I agree with this one, so while I'm a total longhaired smelly hippy. I'm pro nuclear energy).

There you have it. To arguments against.

[Executor]

Now see, this all happened because Tifone gave beer to everyone, and not everyone handles alcohol good.
I suggest candy next time, it improves the mood. :)

[MaxWilson]

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.


Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they strongly disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Edited

[Soyweiser]

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Not often on these subjects, at least not on boards not about these subjects (of course I'm exaggerating a bit). Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea.

[Executor]

"Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea."

So why does everybody keep discussing it? It's the beer isn't it?

[Omnirizon]

there are GW forums with real scientists?

that's probably why it isn't discussed there by the people trying to talk about it here.

[Soyweiser]

"Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea."

So why does everybody keep discussing it? It's the beer isn't it?

Just feeding the trolls ;). Otherwise they would have to live under a bridge. Or perhaps, I'm afraid to live under a bridge myself.

[Tifone]

Lol, peaceful attempt to sink the whole thing in beer = FAILED :D

I have just one question for my old friend SlipperyJim...
Why do we find EVERY time to the opposite sides of the barricade?? :p
Really, I can spot your position just by the way you refer to this "Global Warmism" ;)

[MaxWilson]

"Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea."

So why does everybody keep discussing it? It's the beer isn't it?

I think it's because my attempt to invoke Godwin's Law ran afoul of Quirk's exception, which means the thread is hereby immune to any further attempts to Godwinize it.

-Max

[licker]

I stand by what I said.

Pointless and baseless fearmongering FTW!!!

By the way, pandemic, or asteroid impact, or...

All more likely than your doomsday scenario. I suppose you have thoughts on those issues?

All you're doing is trolling now.

In case you haven't been on the internet long enough yet, let me clarify for you - mocking me only shows that you are incapable of continuing with reasonable debate. This generally can only stem from one of two reasons: a)my assertions are true enough but you don't want to admit it, or b)you are out of your depth, and incapable of continuing with a reasonable and meaningful discussion.

Gee...

Ya think?

I've already made it clear that an argument with you on this topic is pointless, you've made up your mind beyond any shadow of doubt, so yeah, I'll just have some fun with it.

There's also c)this thread has gone on long enough and has become tedious to bother with in a serious manner.

If you are truly interested in a discussion of GW PM me, if you are only interested in parroting some meaningless alarmist babble don't bother.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

Is an interesting article by Tim Patterson which touches some of the points that have been made. If you would care to share your critique of it feel free.

[Radioheart]

It has been my observation that the more responsible media outlets and (in the USA) our new more progressive leadership has rather preferred the term Climate Change to broach the subject of human influence on the climate and atmosphere. Global Warming has become much too divisive and doesn't adequately describe the phenomenon. Should the climate change, some places may get colder.

However you name it, hard to imagine we could make such a significant change in our atmosphere (increased CO2 levels) without having some measurable, observable affect on the global climate. These effects may not have manifested themselves to the extent we can link them to the changed composition of our atmosphere with complete certainty, at least not with the currently observable data, but surely some change will take, and has already taken place.

One thing I think gives a lot of perspective, especially in the context of those who think the earth is such a big place and cannot imagine how we could affect anything on such a scale, is how thin our atmosphere really is. Travel 30 miles in any direction NESW and you'll probably be somewhere quite similar to the place you started. Travel 30 miles straight up are you are in the Mesosphere, the wispy thin border of deep space.

[licker]

What happens if you travel 30 miles straight down?

You do know that we have had higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere before right? And that it was also very cold during that time? Oh, there are reasons I'm sure, well excuses more like it, to make up for unproven science being shoved down everyones throat.

Though I'm not sure who here is actually saying that 'we' shouldn't do anything, though I get the feeling that some of you think that.

[Radioheart]

Though I'm not sure who here is actually saying that 'we' shouldn't do anything, though I get the feeling that some of you think that.

We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all. Might as well get a headstart.

Also, go go fusion power!

[Soyweiser]

You do know that we have had higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere before right? And that it was also very cold during that time? Oh, there are reasons I'm sure, well excuses more like it, to make up for unproven science being shoved down everyones throat.


I personally think that we shouldn't focus on co2 alone. There are a lot more factors that show that we are kinda ruining our planet. Increased smog levels, polluted oceans (the floating plastic, dead spots), the ozone layer, depleting resources, overpopulation etc. Not all of this causes global warming. But it is all the caused by our inability to reduce our production population and our constant need for 'moar'.

[MaxWilson]

We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all. Might as well get a headstart.

Also, go go fusion power!

Well, the supply actually isn't exactly *finite* because it's renewable (Changing World Technologies still has their plant in Carthage, Missouri making oil from turkey guts, although it's had business problems and public-image problems and may not be profitable). Although obviously in order to make more fossil fuels you'd need energy input, and fusion power (which locally or in the sun) is one of the only ways to supply that energy long-term. And at that point, fossil fuels are only a distribution mechanism useful mainly for off-grid components (automobiles), and you might consider another energy distribution medium like fuel cells.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

I personally think that we shouldn't focus on co2 alone. There are a lot more factors that show that we are kinda ruining our planet. Increased smog levels, polluted oceans (the floating plastic, dead spots), the ozone layer, depleting resources, overpopulation etc. Not all of this causes global warming. But it is all the caused by our inability to reduce our production population and our constant need for 'moar'.

Even many of the people who believe that AGW is unsound would agree with that. Although personally I would like to see a more quantitative proposal, I approve of the idea of being a responsible steward of Earth's resources.

-Max

[Soyweiser]

We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all.

Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

[Soyweiser]

Although personally I would like to see a more quantitative proposal

I agree there. But people are always a bit bad at very large scale, long time stuff.

[JimMorrison]

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

It would seem that for the most part, this should not be an enormous issue, though wind is not one of my favorite prospects anyway. But we have to bear in mind that capturing energy is not a one way trip. The great majority of that energy will be dispersed shortly after collection, in the form of heat. The thermal radiation from factories, and engines and such will help to maintain turbulence in the atmosphere due to convection. I still think that geothermal and solar are our best bets.


We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all.

Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

Well, if they believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old, then the creation of oil must necessarily be rather quick.




And Licker, we were all having a somewhat rousing, but engaging and (mostly) polite discussion of this subject. It really seems that the only one not worth discussing it with is you, so I wonder why you decided that you had to begin to try to sabotage this thread by trolling and making personal attacks?

[thejeff]

Well, the supply actually isn't exactly *finite* because it's renewable (Changing World Technologies still has their plant in Carthage, Missouri making oil from turkey guts, although it's had business problems and public-image problems and may not be profitable). Although obviously in order to make more fossil fuels you'd need energy input, and fusion power (which locally or in the sun) is one of the only ways to supply that energy long-term. And at that point, fossil fuels are only a distribution mechanism useful mainly for off-grid components (automobiles), and you might consider another energy distribution medium like fuel cells.

The various Biofuel processes have their issues, but some are promising. They are not, in any sense of the term, "fossil fuels".

[Soyweiser]

It would seem that for the most part, this should not be an enormous issue, though wind is not one of my favorite prospects anyway. But we have to bear in mind that capturing energy is not a one way trip. The great majority of that energy will be dispersed shortly after collection, in the form of heat. The thermal radiation from factories, and engines and such will help to maintain turbulence in the atmosphere due to convection. I still think that geothermal and solar are our best bets.

It could create more powerful storms. As I live in a country that once had around 1/12 of it destroyed by a storm, and which also is around 50% under the sea level. I would rather not have more dangerous storms. I kinda like it here, no dangerous animals. Mostly liberal laws. Good healthcare, good job opportunities. (I do like geothermal and solar energy. That is heat that is otherwise wasted. We could also use other forms waste heat more efficiently. Some Russian cities have used waste energy from electricity plants to great effect for example).


Well, if they believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old, then the creation of oil must necessarily be rather quick.


Yeah, but I believed it wasn't religious nuts. More fuel industry nuts. There is more on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Note, that I don't believe it. But I also don't have any knowledge about it. They could be right. I just don't know.

[Executor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyweiser View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioheart View Post
We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all.
Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

Yes but it takes thousands and thousands of years for fossil fuels to be created naturaly, and the world just keeps moving faster and more demanding.

[MaxWilson]

Well, the supply actually isn't exactly *finite* because it's renewable (Changing World Technologies still has their plant in Carthage, Missouri making oil from turkey guts, although it's had business problems and public-image problems and may not be profitable). Although obviously in order to make more fossil fuels you'd need energy input, and fusion power (which locally or in the sun) is one of the only ways to supply that energy long-term. And at that point, fossil fuels are only a distribution mechanism useful mainly for off-grid components (automobiles), and you might consider another energy distribution medium like fuel cells.

The various Biofuel processes have their issues, but some are promising. They are not, in any sense of the term, "fossil fuels".

Well, they are petrochemicals. Is this a semantic quibble about the fact that they don't come from fossils, or are you claiming that the oil produced from thermal depolymerization (or whatever CWT is calling it nowadays) is chemically different from regular light crude? If so, can you substantiate that claim?

-Max

Edit: P.S. Soyweiser, you may be about to see something you thought was impossible. If thejeff says something like, 'Yes, fossil fuel light crude is 30-50 carbons in length and TDP only produces short-chain hydrocarbons about 18 carbons long,' I will say, 'Oh. I didn't know that. My understanding was that it was the same as oil from oil wells, after refinement.' Or perhaps thejeff will say, 'Oh. I didn't know that was possible.'

[llamabeast]

Max, the point is that burning fossil fuels causes a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. With biofuels and all their derivatives, by contrast, the carbon came from the atmosphere very recently, when it was made, so burning it only puts you back where you started.

The two are basically interchangeable, _except_ for the fact that there's no way you're going to synthesis fuel and pump it underground. So, the more we replace fossil fuel usage with biofuel usage, the less the atmospheric CO2 will increase.

[llamabeast]

Windmills will affect wind in the same way as buildings. i.e. not importantly. Think about it, it's not like the wind knows that the thing stopping it is turning it into electricity rather than just wasting it (a building turns the energy of wind that hits it into heat).

[thejeff]

Actually thejeff will say he doesn't have a clue how or if the chemical composition of oil and TDP fuel differs.

He will also say that it's more than a semantic quibble though, since both the environmental and geopolitical consequences of the two are so different. (Not to mention the whole "fossil" part of fossil fuels.) I've never heard any refer to any kind of biofuel as a "fossil fuel" before.

Geopolitically the problem changes from paying vast sums of money to potentially unfriendly countries and propping up their dictators with oil wealth and guns to try to buy stability to just using cropland to grow fuel crops (or turkeys, but turkeys are far too inefficient to work on a large scale) instead of food.

Environmentally it's a lot better. Energy input comes from the sun to grow the crops. Any carbon released in burning the fuel is only the carbon that was absorbed in growing. In theory, especially if they can get switchgrass or something similar working, little fertilizer should be needed and land can be used that's not very good for food crops.

[JimMorrison]

So far, the entire biofuel push has been more or less a sham anyways. The amount of energy used to create biodiesel from corn, for example, is greater than the amount of energy released by the resultant fuel.

The economic justifications hold little water, for all intents and purposes. Pushing very hard on the development of renewable energy sources, should yield at least satisfactory results, once a minimum threshhold of funding is introduced.

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a hell of a lot better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks whose greed and avarice did nothing for America but highlight how egregiously abusable our free market is, and how abused it has been.

Even if the expense came out to $1trillion every year for the next 5 years, that sort of outlay would create such a stupendous energy surplus as to justify and allow us to rapidly pay off the debt so incurred by the project.

[MaxWilson]

@llamabeast, about non-increasing carbon content from "biofuels" (which I assume includes TDP),

I agree, and that's one of the interesting side-benefits to TDP. Radioheart's statement, though, was not about about carbon ("We are gonna have to stop using fossil fuels eventually. Finite supply after all. Might as well get a headstart.") and neither was thejeff's ("They are not, in any sense of the term, 'fossil fuels'."), so I would still like to understand thejeff's claim.

-Max

[Soyweiser]

Windmills will affect wind in the same way as buildings. i.e. not importantly. Think about it, it's not like the wind knows that the thing stopping it is turning it into electricity rather than just wasting it (a building turns the energy of wind that hits it into heat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power#Climate_change

"One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area[8]. In a similar way, there are concerns of micro-climate change, in particular for urban areas nearby, due to changed airflow and reduced wind power."

Sure it is only one study, and a very large amount of landmass. But there is still some effect. (this was a study from 2004, there was also a more recent one, but apparently this one has not reached wikipedia yet :D)

[MaxWilson]

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a... better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks

That I agree with. Blowing a trillion dollars on solar power panels (or nuclear plants, or hydroelectric dams, or almost *anything* except Tokamaks) would likely have been more cost-effective than blowing a trillion on trying to stabilize the Middle-East politically so we could keep buying oil from them.

I've got my fingers crossed for the Navy's polywell fusion experiments.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

Actually thejeff will say he doesn't have a clue how or if the chemical composition of oil and TDP fuel differs.

He will also say that it's more than a semantic quibble though, since both the environmental and geopolitical consequences of the two are so different.*snip*

Okay, thanks for explaining.

-Max

[licker]

And Licker, we were all having a somewhat rousing, but engaging and (mostly) polite discussion of this subject. It really seems that the only one not worth discussing it with is you, so I wonder why you decided that you had to begin to try to sabotage this thread by trolling and making personal attacks?

roflmao...

Sure whatever, maybe you were late to the thread or maybe you have your blinders on, but me thinks thou doth protest too much. Seriously, what personal attacks are you referring to? The ones where I called someone who was being rude, rude? The ones where I used the same rhetoric 'your side' was using on me on you?

I dunno, I'm not complaining about anything anyone has said to me, and it was likely much more personal than anything I've said to you. Jeez, lets see, you make a post calling me a)an idiot, or b)an idiot... wowsers Jim, you sure got your internet etiquette down.

Did you look at the last link I provided? Do you care to actually look at research which doesn't fit with your view of GW? Do you actively seek it out on your own?

Like I said, you want a real discussion on this topic take it to PM, this thread isn't going to get it done anymore.

[AdmiralZhao]

Oh man, I can't believe I've missed out on this discussion for the last few weeks. All this time I kept seeing it on the front page, and thinking "Wow, how long can they talk about a little snow?"

Ok, time for my data point. I work for an oil company, and while I'm not exactly management material, I have managed to attend two conferences for company big-wigs. Both have had talks on global warming, and the position presented is that man-made GW is real, and if unchecked, runs a significant risk of an OMG-BBQ-Apocalypse scenario. I'm not sure what the marketing and PR departments are saying/promoting with their share of the revenue, but at least internally to the company it is considered a real danger. Fortunately, there is a solution to global warming. By using carbon capture technology, liquefied C02 can be pumped back into underground reservoirs, preventing it from afflicting our atmosphere. Essentially, after paying oil companies for 100 years to pump the carbon out of the earth, people would pay oil companies for the next 100 years to pump the carbon back into the earth. I encourage you all to write your senators in support of this technology, since A) it will do wonders for my job security, and B) I would find this scenario hilarious.

[chrispedersen]

The average temperature of the world is gradually, and consistently increasing.

No its not Jim. Data has scatter - with up years and down years.
This year, the temperature will be down.

[chrispedersen]

So far, the entire biofuel push has been more or less a sham anyways. The amount of energy used to create biodiesel from corn, for example, is greater than the amount of energy released by the resultant fuel.

The economic justifications hold little water, for all intents and purposes. Pushing very hard on the development of renewable energy sources, should yield at least satisfactory results, once a minimum threshhold of funding is introduced.

And to clarify, even if it took solar panels 20 years to recoup their investment in energy costs, compared to the current cost of oil, it is beyond a win-win situation from day 1 (more American jobs in PV-cell fab plants, less reliance on foreign fuel, less reliance on fossil fuel altogether, reduced environmental impact, etc), but it's also a hell of a lot better expenditure of even say $1trillion, than propping up banks whose greed and avarice did nothing for America but highlight how egregiously abusable our free market is, and how abused it has been.

Even if the expense came out to $1trillion every year for the next 5 years, that sort of outlay would create such a stupendous energy surplus as to justify and allow us to rapidly pay off the debt so incurred by the project.


Jim,
you really need to educate yourself on fundamental physics.

Look up, for example, energy density per square meter in new hampshire - and you will find that voltaic cells will *never* be relevent in northern climes.

Which for example, is what field studies confirmed.

Just like ethanol - (unless you are talk cellulosic ethanol which has some real promising developments) solar cells simply *cannot* satisfy our energy demands.

It isn't only a problem of energy density, toxicity in manufacture, limited life, and cost. But the combination is nuts.

Now, I do think we can use tidal, wave, and wind as renewable energy sources. But the costs of these will ALWAYS be higher than nuclear. (Again, energy density).

At least nuclear absent ridiculous political costs. We can game the system anyway we want.

[Omnirizon]

or we could make a lifestyle change.

but as i mentioned before that seems to be a non-option for a certain sector of the crowd in here.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/6585/1zwjjtjdw9.jpg

[Radioheart]

Look up, for example, energy density per square meter in new hampshire - and you will find that voltaic cells will *never* be relevent in northern climes.

Which for example, is what field studies confirmed.

Solar can be made quite relevant in Northern climates if corresponding investments are made to the transmission technology and the power grid.

I remember hearing something along the lines of a 50 mile by 50 mile patch of Nevada desert has the energy output with present photo-voltaic technology to power the entire country.

Of course, the Eisenhower era power grid couldn't transmit a fraction of that to anywhere relevant. Given some investment in both transmission technology and the power grid, its not so hard to imagine a solar farm in Nevada supplying power to the Pacific Northwest, for example. Washington State, hardly a candidate for solar installations, could realistically be powered entirely by solar energy.

[MaxWilson]

Hmmm. Interesting assertion. I can't find any numbers for Nevada insolation, but here's a San Francisco table: http://www.sfog.us/solar/sfsolar.htm

At 6.47E9 square meters (2500 square miles), that gives about 10^13 Kilowatt-hours per year (10 trillion). Wikipedia claims that U.S. energy consumption is 29000 TWh per year (2.9E13 kWhs). So I'd say Radiohead's figure looks like it's in the right ballpark.

-Max

Edit: sorry, Radioheart. Wrong name, my bad.

[JimMorrison]

Look up, for example, energy density per square meter in new hampshire - and you will find that voltaic cells will *never* be relevent in northern climes.

Which for example, is what field studies confirmed.

Solar can be made quite relevant in Northern climates if corresponding investments are made to the transmission technology and the power grid.

I remember hearing something along the lines of a 50 mile by 50 mile patch of Nevada desert has the energy output with present photo-voltaic technology to power the entire country.

Of course, the Eisenhower era power grid couldn't transmit a fraction of that to anywhere relevant. Given some investment in both transmission technology and the power grid, its not so hard to imagine a solar farm in Nevada supplying power to the Pacific Northwest, for example. Washington State, hardly a candidate for solar installations, could realistically be powered entirely by solar energy.


Thank you for beating me to it, I've been following the development of large scale PV technology applications for over a decade now.

Obviously, since daylight is only half the day (at equator, more or less otherwise depending on season), transmission is not exactly the primary hurdle. Consistency is. Which is simple to address, however, through the utilization of some of this energy to perform hydrolosis, and create liquid hydrogen. This can then be burned at night, and/or shipped to other locations for use off the grid, and for eventual vehicular use. The technology for all of that is a few years behind where I'd like it, but only because the funding has always dragged at a minimum.

[Executor]

You are all talking about alternative power sources now, but those aren't going to happen on a larger scale until most oil reserves and alike forms of power sources are spent.

[thejeff]

They'd better happen before then. Or at least be well on the way.

Even ignoring the climate effects, it's going to take time and energy to develop and ramp up alternate power sources. If we wait until we run out of fossil fuels, we won't have the resources left to switch.

[Executor]

I am not so good at Economics, but I presume that the switch should be made step by step since fossil fuels have a great influence on Global Economy.

As to when it will happen, probably when the Big Oil Companies allow it. :)

[Humakty]

Oil as other uses, such as making plastic, so it would be best to switch ealy, no ?

[chrispedersen]

The ability to transmit power will affect *any* power technology.

Generally speaking, the amount of power received *insolation* is about 1KW/m2, in full sunlight. New Hampshire, and other places, only get that for about 25% of the time. The conversion efficiency is 10-20%, although kyocera has gotten up to 40% in the lab.

So, photovoltaic cells covering 3.28 feet by 3.28 feet on your roof, will generate enough power (after conversion to AC) to power *one* lightbulb.

I have a 2400 sq ft house - call it 250 meters squared. I live in florida - great spot for solar, right? So I could generate roughly 25kW of power, roughly 150kW per day. if I totally cover my house in solar panels. Cost of doing that - after state and local subsidies last time I checked was $28,000 with an expected life of 10 years. Total cost was probably 40,000 but I didn't actually have access to the amount of benefit given.

Only problem is - my yearly consumption of power runs about $1800. Which is why, even in florida people are not rushing out to buy solar panels.

Which is why I stand by my assertion that photovoltaics will never make a significant dent in northern climes.

The fact that you can transmit power, means you can transmit power generated by other mechanisms as well.

[krpeters]

Since we're talking about global warming *and* solar power... let's take it to the next level. Parabolic Space Mirrors. Too cold for you in New Hampshire? *sizzle* Just bake the whole state using a 100-mile wide orbiting mirror. Instant weather control too, fry those clouds as they come in. You might not want to aim one at the eye of a hurricane, though.

Getting back to reality... the most readily available alternative energy source is CONSERVATION. It's a whole lot easier to cut our energy use by 20% (just stop buying SUVs!) than it is to increase the supply by 20%.

[atul]

I've for some time liked to think the relation between real world and economics as a relation between chaotic system and an attempt to model it through linearization. Basically, you take the local (current) trend, and assume it is going to last for a while, optimize on that assumption, and after a short while look where you are and repeat. The problem with this is that you might end up staying in the locally highest hill and miss the mountain range just a short way away.

What has that to do with anything? Basically, using fossil fuels is the current local optimum, despite the fact that it might do bad stuff to environment and won't last anyway. Getting rid of even a portion of fossil fuels won't happen with anyone who is looking on quarterly profits at helm. Because for accountants the trinity of coal, oil and natural gas is the way to go for now.

Can't say, though, that the proposed options would sound workable.

For instance, centralized/distributed sun and wind. It's never clear which the PV/wind advocates advocate. Either it's distributed and everywhere, with everyone making their own electricity and backed up by huge transmission grid getting juice from somewhere else, or then it's large plants in uninhabited lands supplying electricity to far away places. The problem with large grids isn't just losses to resistance in wires (which you could theoretically avoid by using fictional room-temperature superconductors), but also the fact that if you build huge network, you start getting issues with inductance and general network stability. There's a very good reason for my country having a DC connection only to our eastern neighbour, even if that connection transmits GW-class power.

Solar/wind might get really nice and cheap given time, but I still haven't seen any solution to the problem that when such an intermittent power sources start to contribute more than 10% of total annual electricity, the whole grid will have to start to operate on their terms. Basically after that point there might be times when 100% of current power needs will be supplied by wind... or 0%. And the rest of production must follow.

Big industry's quite keen on this carbon capture and storage. But much of what I've seen has been little but glorified greenwash. For one the scale of the projects are still way too small - several MW projects. And this thing scales much? Also even if the capture part would be possible without expending too much extra energy, the storage part is still unresolved. Geological storage is suitable only in selected locations (old oil fields). Mineral storage is absurd (use a ton of Calcium to store two tons of CO2?) at least where I'm looking at. And dumping it to sea bottom and assuming it won't come up doesn't strike me as too good either. Also the fun part is, that every storage option assumes some percentage to be leaking annually. Basically CCS isn't a way to mitigate CO2-emissions, but a way to _delay_ them. Talk about future generations.

Nuclear gets the political opposition from the other competitors across the board. It should be seen as something that compliments other CO2-light options, not as a horror flick waiting to happen. Even waste is a more political problem than technical one (hint: US is not nearly most advanced nation in resolving the waste issue). Problem are also the advocates bashing regulations: the regulation in such a high-risk/low probability field are important and everyone's friend. At least when done correctly, and followed also.

Anyway, no silver bullet for providing energy, your stance towards climate change non-withstanding. Diversifying energy base won't give profits next year, but anyone who figures the stuff out and has muscle to pull it through will probably remembered as a visionaire.

My few eurocent rant.

[Omnirizon]

agree and am responding to everything you've said atul, i just don't want to quote it because it is so long :p

there is a sociologist here at my university studying the history of oil use. others have done the same, such as Timothy Mitchell from your side of the pond.

the most interesting thing is the degree to which early oil and automobile companies had to _create_ an oil economy, it was by no means the natural or even the best choice, it was simply the most profitable one. Electric automobiles and cars were actually the norm as the auto was being invented in the late 19th century. it was only due to collaborative efforts between oil and auto that killed the electric car and created the gas powered ones.

it gets deeper than that even. some historians recount the degree to which oil and auto then had a strong influence on the creation of our modern period's infrastructure in america; the creation of streets and suburbs over rail and public transportation. all moves designed to create a dependency on oil and the auto.

in the late 20th century, further efforts to create electric cars were then, literally, shredded by oil and auto.

[Illuminated One]

Huh, where did they get their energy from?
Even now batteries can't compete with gas. And a battery that is recharged often will get worse.
Back then they didn't even have electric light everywhere afaik.

I think it's mostly due to practical reason that oil was adapted. Slow cars with very limited range vs. fast cars with good range.

[atul]

Originally petroleum was just a toxic waste by-product from extracting "better" oil qualities from the stuff you pump out of ground. So there was a lot of incentive to turn it into something useful.

But the electric cars used to outperform petrol cars. Basically, who would be mad enough to hop onto an experimental device using highly flammable fuel that you could easily crash? Madness, I tell you. I've heard the version that it was the mass production that finally settled the fight between petrol and alternatives, but I could be wrong. Anyway electric network was in operation way before gas station networks were built.

I'm not too keen on all the conspiracy stuff with big oil vs public transportation, but it has happened that perfectly viable public transportation has been trashed in favour of cars, giving rise to claims that public transportation isn't viable in smaller communities. Resident Finns on the forum might want to check out Rovaniemi's history, I can't speak for other countries. But, thread carefully on the conspiracy front, it's easy to classify people a bit strange in the head if they go lone gunmen a lot.

[Omnirizon]

Huh, where did they get their energy from?
Even now batteries can't compete with gas. And a battery that is recharged often will get worse.
Back then they didn't even have electric light everywhere afaik.

I think it's mostly due to practical reason that oil was adapted. Slow cars with very limited range vs. fast cars with good range.

this is what the oil and auto want you to believe. although, it is actually very humanly natural to think in terms of technological determinism.

simply google "early electric cars" or better yet, if you have a university proxy to journal archives like JSTOR, you can read about the history of the car. further, if you have a university library with archived magazines from the late 19th century, you can see the trajectory of development of the car in the magazines and see the kind of propaganda adds ran by oil and auto. if you want to look up the work of Dan Lord, he is compiling and writing on all these things.

there is no practical reason to adopt oil, it was done simply for capitalistic motives. I'm not even so sure speed and range were practical benefits of oil at the time. they are today only due to the amount of investment put in this techonology. But even if it was, that may be why there was so much influence to create sprawling cities with suburbs and no mass trans or rail; this was needed to justify the rational for using oil.

also, if you read on the history of the car, you will see that suitable batteries for it had been developed a century earlier. if we had stuck with battery technology, rather than switching to internal combustion, then battery and electric engine technology would far surpass the alternatives now.

electricity and most of its production methods are too liquid. oil is something that can be easily controlled.

[Edi]

No easy solutions and none that involve a painless outcome.
As far as the global warming discussion itself goes, here is something I think many people participating in this thread would benefit from reading:

Link (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM)

It addresses numerous issues regarding global warming, including a discussion of the science and pseudoscience related to it and many other things. It's written by a professor of geology from the University of Wisconsin and his resume can be found here. (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/resume.htm) So we can trust this guy to know what he is talking about regarding this issue, as it pertains to his field of expertise in several ways, as climate is a big factor in many geological areas.

Whether you agree with him is immaterial, but for those who are interested, it could be educational. His other science/pseudoscience pages are also good reading. Often for laughs as much as for anything else.

[licker]

simply google "early electric cars" or better yet, if you have a university proxy to journal archives like JSTOR, you can read about the history of the car. further, if you have a university library with archived magazines from the late 19th century, you can see the trajectory of development of the car in the magazines and see the kind of propaganda adds ran by oil and auto. if you want to look up the work of Dan Lord, he is compiling and writing on all these things.

Done, but what propaganda are you talking about? Or is any advertising propaganda?

In any case, there were electric cars competing with their gasoline based cousins, but ultimately the technological pace of the internal combustion engine left battery technology behind (as well as steam technology), and as Ford started his mass production lines there was only one vehicle type customers were interested in.

Moving ahead a century there are clearly reasons to prefer electric (or other alternative) vehicles over their ICE counterparts, and few would disagree that the auto manufacturers have done all that they can to keep from having to actually innovate until the last decade.

It should be noted as well that battery powered vehicles have been largely 'inferior' (in terms of power, distance, and price) to ICE. This is not particularly surprising as there was more research and development being done for the ICE chassis' rather than a systematic drive to create 'better' electric cars. We are fortunately in a different mind set today, and there is more interest (which means more funding) to explore alternatives.

[Omnirizon]

simply google "early electric cars" or better yet, if you have a university proxy to journal archives like JSTOR, you can read about the history of the car. further, if you have a university library with archived magazines from the late 19th century, you can see the trajectory of development of the car in the magazines and see the kind of propaganda adds ran by oil and auto. if you want to look up the work of Dan Lord, he is compiling and writing on all these things.

Done, but what propaganda are you talking about? Or is any advertising propaganda?

In any case, there were electric cars competing with their gasoline based cousins, but ultimately the technological pace of the internal combustion engine left battery technology behind (as well as steam technology), and as Ford started his mass production lines there was only one vehicle type customers were interested in.

Moving ahead a century there are clearly reasons to prefer electric (or other alternative) vehicles over their ICE counterparts, and few would disagree that the auto manufacturers have done all that they can to keep from having to actually innovate until the last decade.

It should be noted as well that battery powered vehicles have been largely 'inferior' (in terms of power, distance, and price) to ICE. This is not particularly surprising as there was more research and development being done for the ICE chassis' rather than a systematic drive to create 'better' electric cars. We are fortunately in a different mind set today, and there is more interest (which means more funding) to explore alternatives.


all advertising is scandalous, of course. :p

[MaxWilson]

Interesting link, Edi. I'm disappointed that he spends so much time arguing with a straw man: people who think carbon dioxide has zero effect on the climate. He doesn't actually spend any time (in the first third, which is where I stopped) actually defending climatology predictions in any quantitative way, and of course that's where all the real disagreements lie.

"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense."

In other words, Dutch appears to be arguing with the kooks (who think that "global warming" doesn't exist and carbon dioxide doesn't affect climate at all--do such people even exist?) and not with the people who feel that climatology, particularly the popularized version which includes famines, mass migrations and disappearing continents by 2050, is unsound. What would it take to disprove my skepticism? It would help if AGW advocates would actually honestly answer critiques instead of dodging or condescending, but my doubts would be irrefutably laid to rest if the other system inputs (solar energy) could be kept constant or decreased while CO2 rose, and temperature continued to rise as climate models predict[1]. Do that for, say, ten years, and show a consistent temperature rise, and I'll call the climate models validated. What we have so far looks more like over-fitting the data, to use the machine-learning term.

-Max

Edit: [1] Specifically, if I get to choose the solar inputs and other inputs, you get to choose the CO2 levels, at any level which makes the model still predict a temperature rise. In this case, "I" is obviously not MaxWilson but a generic, skeptic "red force." "You" is also a generic, theory-defending "blue force."

[licker]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=010405M

I'll post it again as I would be interested to see peoples responses to it.

[Executor]

Since we are talking about technologies of the future and alternative power sources, some of you might find this interesting.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHelium-3&ei=e2RJSdS7GZvUQPjXwRY&usg=AFQjCNE1VtxglUvxTi5g10l2HsMISsWiOA&sig2=lkogo1BWCzAtx43I2m5Y1Q

Helium 3, rare on Earth but an abundance of it on Moon. It is estimated that this potential power source could be available by year 2050. It's potencial is supposed to be enormous.

[atul]

Helium-3's use as a fusion fuel faces several difficulties. First of all, the reaction coefficients of He3-He3 -fusion require a lot higher temperature than for example Deuterium-Tritium fusion that's currently attempted in international fusion projects. Secondly, how are you planning on removing heat from plasma? With neutrons, 4/5 of the fusion energy is deposited at the walls by neutrons, but aneutronic fusion has nothing that's neutral in electric charge. And charged particles, like the proton advertised in wikipedia article, are trapped inside the plasma.

I'd get D-T fusion to work first. The activation by neutrons is a minor hurdle compared to the problems you have when none appear.

[Executor]

Ok, here's another one I remember reading somewhere.
Moon solar panels, there are some places on the moon that are exposed to Sun 90% of time, since the temperature of the moon is ? about 100C in the sun I believe, the usage of solar panel has greater potential there.
Energy gathered by solar panels could be transformed into microwaves and sent back to Earth to be transformed into electricity.

[Edi]

Interesting link, Edi. I'm disappointed that he spends so much time arguing with a straw man: people who think carbon dioxide has zero effect on the climate. He doesn't actually spend any time (in the first third, which is where I stopped) actually defending climatology predictions in any quantitative way, and of course that's where all the real disagreements lie.
Riddle me this Max: How the goddamn hell are you in any way competent to dismiss Mr. Dutch if you didn't bother to read his argument in its entirety?

He uses roughly the first third to smack down the idiot brigade (yes, it does exist, I've run into its representatives several times) precisely so that they can be told to bugger off the moment they try to bleat something.

The substantive arguments are further down. Yes, they focus on CO2 mostly, but that's something that impacts all climate models. His argument is based on the known properties of atmospheric CO2 and its effects. He also tackles many of the inconsistencies in the AGW position and the arguments include the documented impact of solar input of energy per surface area vs human caused input and various other things.

The statistical analysis of sources for various scientific arguments is also revealing in many places on just how things are often portrayed in the general media.

It's long, it's sometimes boring and it's not necessarily easy to understand, but I have enough working knowledge of math, physics and chemistry to understand his numbers and enough grasp of logic to understand his arguments, where they come from and how they follow.

If that kind of detailed arguments gets nothing better than a TLDR response, the person so responding can be dismissed as being full of crap and unqualified to comment meaningfully on the subject.

[MaxWilson]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=010405M

I'll post it again as I would be interested to see peoples responses to it.

All I can say is, weird.

"Well, the big problem until recently with a solar forcing scenario for climate change has been that the sun's energy output through an 11-year sunspot cycle varies only by around 0.1 percent. This energy output variability is insufficient on it's own, to cause the 0.6 degree Celsius increase in global temperature observed through the 20th century."

In other words, it happens, but we can't explain why.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" -Isaac Asimov

-Max

P.S. And yes, I've heard the theories about cosmic rays and cloud formation. I have no way to evaluate whether they're accurate.

[MaxWilson]

Riddle me this Max: How... are you in any way competent to dismiss Mr. Dutch if you didn't bother to read his argument in its entirety?

If you want to be technical about it, I was dismissing *you* as having recommended an irrelevant article. Now that you've explained that the real value is further in, I've gone back to see if he has anything to say after all. The section "Running the Numbers", about 65% of the way through, starts to be relevant and interesting. "A Step In the Right Direction" briefly refutes a statement by Richard Lindzen about sea temperatures (I haven't read Lindzen's paper here but Dutch is persuasive). And... that's it. Maybe six paragraphs in the whole thing not dealing with kooks and fools.

(Not that those kooks don't thoroughly deserve smacking-down. But I don't care about them and you're wasting my time by trying to make me read refutations of their arguments.)

-Max

[licker]

Why so hostile Edi?

It's true that a large portion of that link deals with strawman arguments. And while even if he is correct it doesn't shed much light on where the real debate lies.

He also seems to have some kind of fascination with Crichton and Boortz, and last I checked, no one was taking them seriously (RIP to Crichton anyway...).

The case for AGW rests on proving the link between CO2 and rising temperatures. This I think, everyone here agrees on. So far this link has been found wanting in the data, and no matter how much it seems that the link should be undeniable, the facts do not actually support it (historically as well as currently).

It could be correct, and it's certainly an hypothesis worth continuing to investigate. Further, it's also worth spending time and resources to mitigate and adapt to climate changes no matter the driver. It's also a good idea to continue to investigate and develop alternate energy sources (and clean or green can have a priority).

However, all of that is completely beside the point of what the evidence actually shows, AS FAR AS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE IS CONCERNED.

Sorry to shout, but that's the fact, and I don't want it to get lost in the silly name calling or strawman rhetoric some people have been throwing around in this thread.

Everyone seems to admit that global climate is a hideously complex beast and there is not an abundance of historical data to use (in terms of the kind of data we have started to collect over the past decade or so). My contention has never been against the fact that there has been warming, or that we should be looking at ways to mitigate the damages caused by climate change (since clearly climate change is inevitable anyway, no matter the perceived causes). My contention has been with the seeming willingness of many people, scientists with whom I work included, to jump off this cliff without the normal scrutiny applied.

Look at cold fusion, look at the anthrax scare, look at various epidemics from history, look at WMDs in Iraq. When the scientific method (or just raw data) is misapplied (or taken out of context by governments) the results are usually an embarrassment to all involved.

[MaxWilson]

Let me put it this way, Edi: it bothers me a lot that all the criticism of AGW seems to come from skeptics. Normally you would expect someone to say, "This is my theory, here are my assumptions. Initially we were concerned because it seemed like A, B, C, but examining the data from experiment X it turns out that Y. We are currently still trying to explain Z but we don't think it's really a problem."

It bothers me a lot that people like you and Dutch address only the quacks instead of real questions (like the ones raised in the article licker cited a few posts earlier, or the ones like "Why is GISS so careless with its data? Why should we trust them?"). This may be because the issue is so politicized that you get better mileage out of criticizing the quacks, I don't know. In theory, AGW advocates should be *raising* the questions as well as answering them. In practice it doesn't seem to work that way.

-Max

Edit: typo fixes, added GISS question.

[Edi]

I'll get back to licker's article tomorrow. It is a good one. G'night...