Humans blamed for climate change

[Sonart]

I don't get it, rm. What's your beef in this fight? I've been a fan of your pragmatic, level headed posts for several years now, and you are way too intelligent not to accept the reality that science has reached an almost universal concensus that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, with even former skeptics grudgingly accepting reality.

Are you one of those libertarians so wed to your beliefs that you'll immerse yourself in complete denial rather than accept something as true simply because it has the potential for requiring limits on our gawd given rights to profit through pollution?

Quote by: minguita As Lawrence Salomon concludes in his article the real deal :"CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

Yeah, yeah... and we have scientists telling us that smoking is not addictive and that the earth is flat. Lawrence Solomon is not a scientist, he's an economist, the head of the libertarian Urban Renaissance Institute.

Quote by: rmnunez Science is supposed to be objective, not advance interested agendas.

This idiotic suggestion is so 180 degrees from reality. What 'agenda' does science have in declaring that research is proving anthropogenic global warming? Grant money??? Are you saying that for the last 30 years peer-reviewed scientists have been running around faking data and fabricating phenomena that confirms predictions based on athropogenic global warming... all to make a few bucks and all without any of this massive fraud being exposed?

Better to ask yourself what agenda the oil, gas, coal, automobile and other energy dependent industries -- to say nothing of 'Don't Tread on My Sacred Freedoms' libertarians -- have in denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

.

[rmnunez]

What 'agenda' does science have in declaring that research is proving anthropogenic global warming?

An agenda similar to Dr. Shaviv's who finds that even if CO2 emissions play a secondary role in global warming, they should be curbed to reduce pollution.

I think reducing current oil-based energy dependence will reduce pollution, promote alternative fuels, foster development of new technologies and diminish vulnerability to regional conflictive oil sources -but will not impede or prevent global warming. If any of these items (minus the last) are on your agenda, promoting reductions in oil-based energy use based on concern over global warming is fraudulent.

[tinybear]

Here's how we deal with global warming in Hong Kong.



OK, that's a joke. But seriously, that's how Hong Kong deals with global warming. Nothing.

[rmnunez]

Hong Kong doesn't have to do anything about global warming, its all the fault of the greedy industrialized countries, particularly the US, these are the ones who have to fix it.

[rmnunez]

An interesting email exchange relating to people who live in glass houses:
Urban Legends Reference Pages: A Tale of Two Houses

[rmnunez]

The home of another environmentalist concerned over global warming



With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming | Showbiz | This is London

[Zee-Axis]

In his defense... he only flies one at a time.

[rmnunez]

From the IPCC's Procedures for Reports:

While the large volume and technical detail of this material places practical limitations upon the extent to which changes to these Reports will normally be made at Sessions of Working Groups or the Panel, "acceptance" signifies the view of the Working Group or the Panel that this purpose has been achieved. The content of the authored chapters is the responsibility of the Lead Authors, subject to Working Group or Panel acceptance. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf

That doesn't sound very scientific to me. And its been shown those expressing views inconsistent with said Summary have been harmed.

I also found the two step process of report delivery rather contrived. The 4 month delay between the initial IPCC report and its final version in May sets the entire public agenda and terms of discussion until the next summary for policymakers (in a few years). And that is obviously the point of creating a summary for policymakers. So that they can go ahead and make policy confident that they won't be blindsided by anything that might pop up later. No one will be able to "refute" anything in the interim because refuting ain't on the agenda and the details are nowhere to be seen. That's what "consensus" is all about. Oh I'm sure someone will wait around for months while "the consensus" allocates budget money and funds projects. But by May, ALL such effort will be decried as "nitpicking" (or perhaps compared to Holocaust denial).

[rmnunez]

The prediction by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to be released on Friday, part of its first review in 6 years of the evidence for man-made climate change.

And we already know that review will conclude the problem is with united statian greenhouse gas emissions and Bush's failure to ratify Kyoto.

The report will say that action taken swiftly to reduce present emissions can reduce or delay many impacts, and the magnitude of some effects can be eased if countries set in place adaptation measures, such as buffers to protect coastal populations and reservoirs to collect water. UN panel poised for bleak report on climate

I wonder whether swift action diminishing present emissions would reduce or delay impacts to any effect. How much would the predicted global average temperature or sea level vary if the united statians immediately ceased all petroleum consumption and ratified Kyoto?

[xyzer]

And we already know that review will conclude the problem is with united statian greenhouse gas emissions and Bush's failure to ratify Kyoto

The Senate of the US failed to ratify Kyoto during the Clinton Administration..not Bush? It didn't come onn his watch?

Though I will agree he is against it as are most of we skeptics. As an example it promised staggering costs and it omitted two of the biggest 5 Co2 sources..China and India?
Even more importantly if suggested an atmpspheric gas(Co2) which constitutes less than 1% of the total atmospheric gases in the earths atmosphere was responsible for climate change? It further suggested if that a small fraction of that 1%(anthropogenic caused) could be changed that would have an effect? And according to the the UN report even if we changed that small fraction it would take several centuries to feel the effects? If that isn't a pie in the sky scenario I'm crazy.
We can't even change local climate..how in the hell do we propose to change world climate? Someone forgot the sun is the most important climate changer and we will play hell reducing its burning?

[rmnunez]

I don't agree with the IPCC reports, I see them as agenda-driven exagerations. Besides, it seems like the world faces an inevitable process which will span centuries. In about 250 years the global warming will be descending to about present temperatures and people will be worried the Arctic is going to freeze. Changes in the use of oil-derived contaminants may affect the duration of the warming process and/or how swiftly temperatures or waters rise, but it appears the difference is minimal.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer The Senate of the US failed to ratify Kyoto during the Clinton Administration..not Bush? It didn't come onn his watch? Though I will agree he is against it as are most of we skeptics. As an example it promised staggering costs and it omitted two of the biggest 5 Co2 sources..China and India? Even more importantly if suggested an atmpspheric gas(Co2) which constitutes less than 1% of the total atmospheric gases in the earths atmosphere was responsible for climate change? It further suggested if that a small fraction of that 1%(anthropogenic caused) could be changed that would have an effect? And according to the the UN report even if we changed that small fraction it would take several centuries to feel the effects? If that isn't a pie in the sky scenario I'm crazy. We can't even change local climate..how in the hell do we propose to change world climate? Someone forgot the sun is the most important climate changer and we will play hell reducing its burning?

Xyzer, do you ignore everything that I've told you. Let's not go into Global warming, let's say it's bogus. Now let's focus on your point that we can't change local climate. Remember, I actually told you about how, when nearly all commercial air travel in the US was halted for 3 days, daily temperatures varied by an extra 1.1 degree celsius over the US.
Yeah, that's obviously no affect on our local climate. :rolleyes:

So please, take your ignorant rhetoric some place else. Just because you keep repeating it over and over doesn't make any more correct than the first time round, it just makes you look stupid.

[Century 25]

Humans are almost certainly the catalyst driving the rapid global warming.. so far it seems much is focused upon the (expected) rise in sea level.. also the resultant shift in growing seasons.. etc.. but.. as in physics.. there too is another effect occurring.. as the arctic ice is melting.. the Antarctic ice mass is growing.. at the rate of 26.8 gigatons per year..

(Reference: CO2 Science
Joughin, I. and Tulaczyk, S. 2002. Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. Science 295: 476-480.)

More recently: CO2 Science

The authors are saying Antarctica is "balancing" out the loss at the arctic ice mass.. well.. that is for sure.. and at over two-miles thick.. that mass is actually squeezing the earth.. there is an enormous dent.. have any of you read the "HAB" theory..?? I recalled reading it over 30 years ago.. quite interesting.. especially about the woolly mammoths found frozen to death.. still with mouths full of food.. and the tropical fossils in places where it is either temperate or even arctic..

Much more is in the book.. in light of what I also read in either Sky & Telescope or Astronomy a few months ago.. re: Iapetus.. the HAB proposition seems possible..

[Yarn]

The Senate of the US failed to ratify Kyoto during the Clinton Administration..not Bush? It didn't come onn his watch?

Though I will agree he is against it as are most of we skeptics. As an example it promised staggering costs and it omitted two of the biggest 5 Co2 sources..China and India?

What staggering costs? It hasn't seemed to have noticably enfeebled its practicing signatories on my watch...

Maybe global warming can't be stopped without China and India's help, however it would be worth a substantial investment to even delay the onset of its more adverse potential effects in my opinion.

Even more importantly if suggested an atmpspheric gas(Co2) which constitutes less than 1% of the total atmospheric gases in the earths atmosphere was responsible for climate change?

Oh its smaller then 1% by a large margin indeed (360 parts per million isn't it?).

Of course the atmosphere is 100,000 feet tall, weighs tons...even a small fraction of it should could conceptually plausibly have an big impact.

Essentially, what scientests are argueing is that CO2 causes temperatures to rise slightly, and that as a consequence is increasing the atmospheres water vapor content by a fair amount. Water vapor is a significant part of the atmosphere, and cuases warming.

I don't know how that sounds to my ears, but what can I claim to know?

It further suggested if that a small fraction of that 1%(anthropogenic caused) could be changed that would have an effect?

Why does atmospheric CO2 rise
The amount of CO2 has gone up by 27%, to higher then its been in 220,000 years, according to scientific data-due to human emissions. Quit farting man.

And according to the the UN report even if we changed that small fraction it would take several centuries to feel the effects?

Qoute?

If that isn't a pie in the sky scenario I'm crazy.
We can't even change local climate..how in the hell do we propose to change world climate? Someone forgot the sun is the most important climate changer and we will play hell reducing its burning?

Look if the suns doing it, lets blow it up. For the sake of our children; and their children as well.

[rmnunez]

Maybe global warming can't be stopped without China and India's help, however it would be worth a substantial investment to even delay the onset of its more adverse potential effects in my opinion.

No maybes involved, China and India, even with the US can't stop global warming.

Whether a substantial investment to just delay global warming is worthwhile depends on how it would impact upon the investor.

In 150 years, sea level could rise 1.5 metres (a centimeter a year). This would affect a population in the tens of millions.

Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest nations is also the country most vulnerable to sea-level rise. The population is already severely affected by storm surges. Catastrophic events in the past have caused damage up to 100 km inland. It is hard to imagine to what extent these catastrophes would be with accelerated sea-level rise. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh - Climate Change

Here you get a Google map where you can adjust the sea level to see what things will look like under different scenarios.
Flood Maps
[/quote]

[Yarn]

No maybes involved, China and India, even with the US can't stop global warming.

I haven't heard that before. Where are you getting this information from?

Whether a substantial investment to just delay global warming is worthwhile depends on how it would impact upon the investor.

And how narcissisticly the word worthwhile is defined.

Tinybear:

The north poles already melted.

[rmnunez]

The global warming process forecast by the IPCC contemplates several scenarios based on increased, constant or reduced pollution. All scenarios contemplate multi-century terms before the warming trend descends to present conditions, what varies is the steepness of the temperature ascent and how long it stays higher. When translated into tangibles it seems the best scenario and the worst differ insignificantly in terms of the overall picture.


Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

We'd be located down here, two notches from the vertical axis where all scenarios are still together, thirty to 50 years from now, you can tell the difference between best and worse case scenarios is about a fifth of a degree. At its maximum forecasted difference, 350 years from now, there are about 2.5 degrees in difference between the worst and best case scenarios.

[rmnunez]

More forecasts:

[xyzer]

Here is a good resume of what some scientists think about the IPCC scare tactic..
http://http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Suggest all interested take a few minutes and view these video clips. You may rethink your opinions.

It just turns our there are terrible flaws in the interpretations and even the IPCC sourced studies themselves....according to prominent scientists. The 'hocky stick graph' represented a flawed analysis and yet it is used repeatedly as an indicator of warmings abrupt rise? You will note natural causes...the sun, cosmic radiation, tectonic shifts, water vapor and other important factors are not addressed in the IPCC report?

Pooey says..?

Remember, I actually told you about how, when nearly all commercial air travel in the US was halted for 3 days, daily temperatures varied by an extra 1.1 degree celsius over the US.

.
I don't recall you telling me that? Nor do I see what relevence it has to warming? Anthropogenic causes? or anything other that a general weather pattern in the US at a specific time? What it indicates might be that even with that rising Co2 gas concentration it still gets cold? And maybe it, and the recent unseasonal cold in the USA indicates the warming is cyclical...as a matter of fact the globe has been a little cooler ever since 1998 and guess what human caused emissions are still spewing out? New York City had some of the coldest seasonal temps since the late 1880s. Can you give me a logical answer to that one? If you choose any response but Climate change is a given and it has been over the millions of years...you are guessing or buying in to a hoax!

[rmnunez]

xyzer, the link doesn't work