[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2013-May-26, 21:42, said:

again Al I don't see what you see given your last sentence and main point.

I just see that we don't know how urgent the problem is, but we agree there is a problem.

I hope the problem is not urgent which means we have time to innovate.

If the problem is urgent then all known solutions are drastic and very bad, hurtful..

Precisely the issue, Mike. The advocates all want urgent action at any cost. The situation (our ability to change global climate) appears less and less urgent with every day and analysis performed because the changes cannot be ascribed to us. (At least of sufficient magnitude to even be clear within natural variation.)

Especially the much touted climate sensitivity to [CO2] which is falling faster than the credibility of the anthropogenic advocates.

[onoway]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-27, 03:53, said:

Precisely the issue, Mike. The advocates all want urgent action at any cost. The situation (our ability to change global climate) appears less and less urgent with every day and analysis performed because the changes cannot be ascribed to us. (At least of sufficient magnitude to even be clear within natural variation.)

Especially the much touted climate sensitivity to [CO2] which is falling faster than the credibility of the anthropogenic advocates.

Since the latest news on the situation is

Quote

While scientists and environmentalists have used the daily milestone to highlight the buildup of greenhouse gases generated by human activities, it's the rate of rise that is most important.

That rate, measured by the Keeling Curve, shows atmospheric CO2 levels are rising at unprecedented rates, driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels over the past two centuries. The curve, pioneered in 1958 by scientist Charles D. Keeling, is the longest-running tally of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and is maintained by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. Readings there hit 399.46 Saturday.

The weekly average reading at Mauna Loa was 399.52 last week, up nearly 22 points from a decade ago, according to the NOAA.

Many scientists have warned that carbon dioxide readings must be brought down to 350 ppm to avoid severe climate impacts and stall "feedback loops" that will exacerbate the rise.

Current ratios of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere remain at levels not seen in more than 3 million years, when sea levels were as much as 80 feet higher than current levels.

It seems astonishing to say we shouldn't do at least anything that we know we can do (easilly and cheaply, like taking options other than burning fields in Africa) because we don't know it's us that's doing it. If you see a flood or fire threatening the house do you sit on your chair and not do anything because you don't know whose fault it is?

[blackshoe]

I don't know about anyone else here, but I haven't burnt any fields in Africa lately, and I'm not in a position to tell those who are doing so to stop.

The last line of onoway's quote is pure fear mongering.

[Al_U_Card]

One can only wonder how the planet survived 6000 ppm (not unlike the [CO2] maintained in submarines...) even though those values seem almost unrelated to cold and hot periods of the past. Perhaps the earth's orbit, volcanism (plate tectonics) and solar activity had more to do with it?

Greenhouses use 1200-1500 ppm to ensure good plant growth and the greening of the earth (peer-reviewed studies previously mentioned up-thread)is keeping pace with CO2 increases as well as the beneficent effect of a marginally warmer climate. (Apparently, the current warming trend is substantially older than our increasing addition to the atmosphere...)

As for the house builders, living on a flood plain increases your chances of being flooded-out more than the 2mm/yr sea-level rise that the warming planet is providing on a steady basis. I suppose King Canute is spinning in his grave

btw Climate sensitivity is the temperature rise expected for a doubling of any forcing, in this case CO2. From the real fear-mongering of up to 5 deg. C it appears to be headed to a more tenable 1.5 to 2.5. Well within our capacity to adapt and enjoy. Now let's just hope that the next cool phases of the various oceanic cycles don't freeze us out before then.

[onoway]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 07:39, said:

I don't know about anyone else here, but I haven't burnt any fields in Africa lately, and I'm not in a position to tell those who are doing so to stop.

The last line of onoway's quote is pure fear mongering.

How much money would it take to guarantee the money normally gained from a field perhaps with a bonus of 5% or so, IF the farmers try a different manner of cultivating? How many farmers do you suppose would say no? These are mostly very poor farmers living subsistence lives and doing things that way simply because that's the way it's been done for generations. Governments in the "developed" countries have frequently paid farmers NOT to grow crops in order to keep the prices high, but that's not the idea at all. China did this when restoring the Loess Plateau. (Not sure that it was an optional choice there though.)

The point is that with such a guarantee it might well not cost very much because the crops would almost inevitably not only come in but do BETTER than usual. So it would mainly be the cost of people to train and monitor and help with techniques.

Farmers are already changing but it's slow because Africa is so big. It would of course help if we didn't burn as well, but we don't do it on anything like the same level, and our farmers/foresters also need to learn how this is a very short term gain for long term loss for them as well as for carbon emission.

Are you saying that the last line in the quote is incorrect? What part of it? It isn't saying that anything is causing anything else, simply that two conditions were simultaneous at that time. Perhaps it does imply one may be associated with the other, but if that may be so, then it would surely be silly and irresponsible not to say unscientific not to include this as a possible side effect of returning to one environmental condition which according to people who supposedly know,was unique to that time (until now) in the history of the earth?

[blackshoe]

onoway, on 2013-May-27, 13:41, said:

Are you saying that the last line in the quote is incorrect?

No, I'm saying that it's an attempt to play on peoples' fears, in particular the bit about sea levels "as much as 80 feet higher than current levels". That's not science, it's politics.

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 18:23, said:

No, I'm saying that it's an attempt to play on peoples' fears, in particular the bit about sea levels "as much as 80 feet higher than current levels". That's not science, it's politics.

Timing is everything. That is why you need accurate (including uncertainty) and not speculative forecasts to allow for adaptation (or to require mitigation, if possible).
The fact that the 80 ft. rise in sea-level would take hundreds if not thousands of years is germane to the issue.

[Daniel1960]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 18:23, said:

No, I'm saying that it's an attempt to play on peoples' fears, in particular the bit about sea levels "as much as 80 feet higher than current levels". That's not science, it's politics.

While the statement may be accurate, it is not very relative to today's environment. Tectonic movements have changed the relative sea level associated with a similar water volume. More importantly, the recent ice age started less than 3 million years ago, such that much less water was tied up in glaciers worldwide prior to that point. While alpine glaciers have melted appreciably, Greenland has only experienced minor losses, and Antarctic none at all.

The other issue is that warmer, shallower sea can hold less CO2 than deeper, colder oceans.

[PassedOut]

The Arctic Ice Death Spiral

Quote

So the volume of ice is decreasing even faster every year as well; the ice is getting thinner and thinner. This is a very bad sign, as thinner ice melts more easily. No one knows when we’ll have the first ice-free Arctic summer—extrapolating into the future can be difficult—but one thing we can bet on is that it’ll be a lot sooner than the year 2100 as originally predicted just a few years ago. It could be in as little as 30 years. Although some deniers claim this Arctic loss is offset by growth in Antarctic ice, this claim as usual, is simply false.

Of course, oil companies are already planning on exploiting an ice-free Arctic to drill for more oil. The irony is obvious, but there’s also the added point that while oil money is behind a lot of the denial, they themselves are ready to jump on the positive—for them—effects of global warming.

And, no doubt, the deniers will make lots of noise about this, calling me an alarmist and pointing to ever more cherry-picked data and misleadingly plotted numbers. But the fact is the Earth is warming up. That’s melting the ice at both poles, increasing sea levels. We’re still dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide in the air every year, and the amount increases at a steady and measurable level. That CO2 is warming us up.

Stopping the deniers may be as hard as stopping the warming itself. Perhaps once we have satellite images of an ice-free north pole we’ll see a change in public sentiment. It’s a shame that may be what it’ll take. My concern is that by the time that happens, it’ll be too late.

For a long time, manufacturers denied that cigarettes caused cancer, enlisting doctors and scientists to raise doubts about the evidence. Then they turned on a dime and said, "Everyone knew that cigarettes cause cancer, but people chose to smoke anyway."

The global warming scenario will play out similarly, but the difference is that the smokers hurt themselves.

[Zelandakh]

As Winstonm pointed out earlier in the thread, a good sientist may not be an expert outside of their field

Quote

Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author.

You can do better than this.

PassedOut, on 2013-May-29, 07:29, said:

For a long time, manufacturers denied that cigarettes caused cancer, enlisting doctors and scientists to raise doubts about the evidence. Then they turned on a dime and said, "Everyone knew that cigarettes cause cancer, but people chose to smoke anyway."

The global warming scenario will play out similarly, but the difference is that the smokers hurt themselves.

It already has, albeit perhaps not in the way that you meant. When I was younger, the predominant theory was that the Earth was cooling and would continue doing so for some time to come. There were the usual media predictions of an Ice Age, etc. Now the predominant theory is that the world is warming and will continue to do so for some time to come. There are the usual media predictions of a runaway greenhouse effect and life being wiped out. My prediction is that the actual events we see will be somewhere between these two (media) positions.

Note that your reference to cigarettes is complete bunkum and you know it. You can do better than this too.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-29, 09:04, said:

When I was younger, the predominant theory was that the Earth was cooling and would continue doing so for some time to come. There were the usual media predictions of an Ice Age, etc.

This statement is factually incorrect and has been debunked on countless sites.

Statements about global cooling received disproportionate coverage in the media, however, this never represented any kind of scientific consensus.
http://www.newscient...-the-1970s.html

Quote

Note that your reference to cigarettes is complete bunkum and you know it. You can do better than this too.

The comments about cigarette smoking are entirely appropriate.

1. Many of the principle players in the "skeptics" movement are direct holdovers from the debates over the "safety" of cigarettes.
2. Companies like Phillip Morris provided significant funding to skeptic think tanks trying to discredit scientists in general in order to help insulate them against lawsuits.

Once again, this is well documented:

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1608193942 is a good starting point...

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-29, 09:33, said:

This statement is factually incorrect and has been debunked on countless sites.

Statements about global cooling received disproportionate coverage in the media, however, this never represented any kind of scientific consensus.
http://www.newscient...-the-1970s.html



The comments about cigarette smoking are entirely appropriate.

1. Many of the principle players in the "skeptics" movement are direct holdovers from the debates over the "safety" of cigarettes.
2. Companies like Phillip Morris provided significant funding to skeptic think tanks trying to discredit scientists in general in order to help insulate them against lawsuits.

Once again, this is well documented:

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1608193942 is a good starting point...

The global cooling theory was real, and has never been "debunked." Both global warming and cooling theories have received disproportionate coverage in the media. Neither the global warming nor global cooling theories have ever garnered anywhere near a consensus. That does not mean that they did not exist. Regarding the cooling theory, the prevailing theory was that the Earth was starting on its path towards a new ice age, enhanced by pollution blocking solar rays (global dimming). The solutions were to eliminate particulate exhaust and smog-enhancing chemicals from tailpipes and smokestacks. The current global warming theory is that the Earth has rebounded from the Little Ice Age, enhanced by greenhouse gases from tailpipes and smokestacks. Many of the principle players in the global warming theory are holdovers from the global cooling theory - different theory, same culprits. Had temperatures not started rising in the early 80s, the global cooling theory likely would have enduring the same treatment that the global warming theory is encountering today. Unless global temperature begin rising anew, the global warming theory will becomes just a memory also.

There is really no comparison of the global warming issue to cigarettes. The health issues linked to tobacco were scientifically significant and robust. The companies own research showed the hazards of cigarettes, which they were trying to obscure or downplay. The scientific research regarding the global warming does not have the same soundness as the tobacco issue. Some people seem to think that people are trying to claim that it does not exist or is a hoax, and linking those who question the robustness of the theory to those who purposefully tried to hide the hazards of tobacco. This is not the case. The science is simply not strong enough (yet?) to make such a claim. Most scientists are not obscuring, downplaying, or hiding the data. I wish I could say "all," but there have been too many instances whereby someone has made unsubstantiated claims concerning the climate research, and this is not limited to the pro or con side.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-May-29, 11:16, said:

The global cooling theory was real, and has never been "debunked."

Zelandakh specifically claimed "When I was younger the predominant theory was that the Earth was cooling and would continue doing so for some time to come".

I am in complete agreement that there were legitimate scientists who were concerned about the possibility of global cooling.
However, this idea was nowhere near as wide spread as the current consensus around climate change and certainly not predominant.

Sadly, you see idiotic skeptics making continuous claims to the contrary...
This is the point that needs to be debunked.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-29, 11:39, said:

Zelandakh specifically claimed "When I was younger the predominant theory was that the Earth was cooling and would continue doing so for some time to come".

I am in complete agreement that there were legitimate scientists who were concerned about the possibility of global cooling.
However, this idea was nowhere near as wide spread as the current consensus around climate change and certainly not predominant.

Sadly, you see idiotic skeptics making continuous claims to the contrary...
This is the point that needs to be debunked.

Granted, I will acknowledge that the global cooling theory was nowhere near as wide spread as the current global warming theory, nor was it the predominant theory at the time. This could be due to the planet starting to warm, before it could become widespread. (I thought you were challenging the theory, as opposed to the acceptance of said theory. Claims of widespread acceptance are false - it was still in its infancy when temperatures started to warm.)

Today's global warming theory has a greater predominace, although not a consensus, which could be due to the longer warming period (~20 years). Obviously, those that though the Earth would continue to cool for "some time to come" were wrong. It is too early to tell if those who claim that the Earth will continue to warm for "some to come" will be right or wrong. This would be dependent on which direction temperatures move from the current warming "hiatus" (as some prefer to call it).

[Winstonm]

Heating versus cooling update: :

Quote

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling

[billw55]

Yes, the media portrayal sometimes does not match the scientific consensus. Other times it does. I do remember television reports, when I was younger, about global cooling .. but not warming. I suspect this was partly because at the time, cooling seemed like it would be a bigger disaster; and partly because it was not a political issue at the time.

To compare, if we surf the wasteland of cable channels, we will find far more programs "reporting" on ghosts, ESP, UFOs, etc, than we find debunking them. Of course this has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific consensus.

But now we have a situation where the media reporting mostly backs the scientific consensus. I submit that this says nothing at all about the relative integrity or comprehension of the purveyors. It only means that it suits their political leanings, and/or their ratings. I don't think they care much whether the information they pass through is actually true.

[Daniel1960]

billw55, on 2013-May-29, 14:20, said:

Yes, the media portrayal sometimes does not match the scientific consensus. Other times it does. I do remember television reports, when I was younger, about global cooling .. but not warming. I suspect this was partly because at the time, cooling seemed like it would be a bigger disaster; and partly because it was not a political issue at the time.

To compare, if we surf the wasteland of cable channels, we will find far more programs "reporting" on ghosts, ESP, UFOs, etc, than we find debunking them. Of course this has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific consensus.

But now we have a situation where the media reporting mostly backs the scientific consensus. I submit that this says nothing at all about the relative integrity or comprehension of the purveyors. It only means that it suits their political leanings, and/or their ratings. I don't think they care much whether the information they pass through is actually true.

The media tends to report what their perceive as newsworthy - accuracy be damned. Also, the supposed consensus is a media creation, meant to validate their viewpoint. Those that think scientists are in agreement on the issue, have been taken in by the media.

[Al_U_Card]

The "pressure" to conform comes not from the ground-swell of popular support but from the guilt associated with our presence and profligate (as preached to us) ways.
Those that take advantage of this nature have been doing so for a long time. We need to take a harder look at what our shepherds are up to, as the flock keeps getting fleeced more than just euphemistically...

This film links it together and sums up just how Enron got the UN ball and chain rolling into the what was hoped to be the next asset bubble.

[billw55]

Daniel1960, on 2013-May-29, 19:59, said:

The media tends to report what their perceive as newsworthy - accuracy be damned. Also, the supposed consensus is a media creation, meant to validate their viewpoint. Those that think scientists are in agreement on the issue, have been taken in by the media.

Not in my direct experience. I am fortunate to live in a community with a major university, and have had opportunities to speak with several scientists about the issue, including climate scientists. From this admittedly small sample, the agreement that (a) global warming is real, and (b) human activity is contributing, is 100%.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-May-30, 06:16, said:

Not in my direct experience. I am fortunate to live in a community with a major university, and have had opportunities to speak with several scientists about the issue, including climate scientists. From this admittedly small sample, the agreement that (a) global warming is real, and (b) human activity is contributing, is 100%.

The main local university here is Michigan Tech and my experience from another small sample echoes yours. Our tea party congressman spoke at a meeting here a few months ago and said that he did not know whether the buildup of CO2 caused warming or not. An articulate young physics professor stood up and said, "Let me educate you about that." After a few sentences, the congressman cut her off by saying, in effect, that he didn't have the background to evaluate her statements. (In real life, he's a physician, so likely not too bright.)