here to enlarge image." data-pin-do="buttonBookmark">
Click here to enlarge image.
Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse, according to a new study from scientists involved with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Threats—ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods—are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.
"Most people thought that the risks were going to be for certain species and poor people. But all of a sudden the European heat wave of 2003 comes along and kills 50,000, [Hurricane] Katrina comes along and there's a lot of data about the increased intensity of droughts and floods. Plus, the dramatic melting of Greenland that nobody can explain certainly has to increase your concern," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who co-authored the research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as well as in several IPCC reports. "Everywhere we looked, there was evidence that what was believed to be likely has happened. Nature has been cooperating with [climate change] theory unfortunately."
Schneider and his colleagues updated a graph, dubbed the "burning embers," that is designed to map the risks of damage from global warming. The initial version of the graph [left] drawn in 2001 had the risks of climate change beginning to appear after 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees C) of warming, but the years since have shown that climate risks kick in with less warming.
According to the new graph, risks to "unique and threatened systems" such as coral reefs and risks of extreme weather events become likely when temperatures rise by as little as 1.8 degrees F from 1990 levels, which is on course to occur by mid-century given the current concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In addition, risks of negative consequences such as increased droughts and the complete melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica definitively outweigh any potential positives, such as longer growing seasons in countries such as Canada and Russia.
"We're definitely going to overshoot some of these temperatures where we see these very large vulnerabilities manifest," says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., another co-author. "We're going to have to learn how to adapt."
Adaptation notwithstanding, Yohe and Schneider say that scientists must also figure out a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reverse the heating trend to prevent further damage.
Several bills pending in Congress would set a so-called cap-and-trade policy under which an overall limit on pollution would be set—and companies with low output could sell their allowances to those that fail to cut emissions as long as the total stays within the total pollution cap. Any such federal policy would put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is currently free to vent into the atmosphere, Yohe note. He, however, favors a so-called carbon tax that would set a fixed price for such climate-changing pollution rather than the cap-and-trade proposals favored by the Obama administration. "It's a predictable price, not a thing that bounces around."
But even with such policies in place—not only in the U.S. but across the globe—climate change is a foregone conclusion; global average temperatures have already risen by at least 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degree C) and further warming of at least 0.7 degree F (0.4 degree C) is virtually certain, according to the IPCC. And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: Will it be catastrophic or not? "We've dawdled, and if we dawdle more it will get even worse," Schneider says. "It's time to move."
See what we're tweeting about
119 Comments
Add CommentGlobal warming already reversed course...all by itself... even without Bono's help... amazing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. The Pope is right about the dangerous dogma of the environmentalist movement. So is Vaclav Klaus, president of the European Union, when he states that "environmentalism is the new communism and climate change is a DANGEROUS myth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn agreement with the Pope and Klaus, more than 650 international scientists dissent over the man-made global warming claims. They are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.
If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.
The risk of major damage from eager stupidness is also on the rise. Before we all jump off of the cliff, please consider that CO2 is our friend and we need more of it in the atmosphere. There is no evidence that CO2 is giving the earth a fever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Ice core data - temperature drives CO2 (thru 650K yrs and many glacial- interglacials) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#more-5392
2) Last 150 years of non-correlation (54% a flip of a coin) between temperature and CO2
3) Last 10 years of flat and/or falling temperatures with rising CO2
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
4) Jim Hansen climate models blaming CO2 for temperature rise Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by not adequately modeling the most abundant GHG, water vapor, and by not seriously considering clouds. http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535b4046b970b-pi
AntonioSosa: "Man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children." Really? How?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming a Hoax eh? I'd like to suggest that if it is, it's the best, most wonderfully coordinated and planned hoax that the world has ever seen - thousands of researchers fabricating temperature data, thousands more folks going around doing little things, like creating fake post cards of shrunken glaciers - these near millions of collaboratorating hoaxers are really, really good - do we have a hope against such overwhelming competence and coordination - who are these folks, how do they fake the ice coverage photos, the melting permafrost - even the European and Russian and Chinese scientists are all in on it - wheels within wheels, plots everywhere - wowf! Or, maybe global warming is real...nah! Too simple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo supposedly there are a lot of people that don't believe the atmosphere is gradually warming even though measurements seem to indicate that it is? Or is it just that they don't want to be held responsible for doing that? Is that the problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre there also "more than 31,000 American scientists" that would sign a petition stating that it is good for us to breathe the fumes we are exhausting into the atmosphere?
Dlweld - Fabricating you bet! Follow the money
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one." . Bab Carter 6-17-07
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
You ever notice how those who support global warming theories tend to talk about the actual science and those apposed to them tend to talk politics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget being on the same page, we are not even reading the same book.
How is it that there was no mention of the fact that it has been cooling since at least 2004? Download the data from HadCRUT and plot it yourself. Don't let someone con you with 11-year smoothing or a linear trend. How is it that there is no mention of the fact that the sun just finished 50+ years of an unusually high level of activity and has so far been at a very low level of activity. Should that be of some passing interest at least?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAntonioSosa: The pope endorses the greatest hoax in the world - the concept of gods and demons. The religious establishments exploits nightmares & feelings of exuberance experienced by all humans and many animals to claim that gods and demons exist. Religion claims to be the representatives of the good force. Religion demands we obey their every word and never think for ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion and Science cannot coexist. Don't try to bring religion into science. People who believe in gods and demons are not scientists, no matter how good their work might be!
The bright side of everything that is happening is the rapid acceleration of the sixth extinction, a result of global human population growth and a decline of biodiversity. Perhaps we might be replaced by a more enlightened species.
The spin doctors might convince you otherwise, just as they claim China is doing nothing about global warming.
China in fact has done the most! They have acted to control population growth (the principal force driving global warming) and biodiversity reductions. China has acted the rest of the world twiddles its thumbs.
When it comes to money, its just numbers on computers, and most of the money represents debt. The total amount of money in the world can not payback the total debt and interest owed on that debt. Money like gods and demons is an illusion. Find out: What is money, where does it come from, why do we need perpetual growth? There is plenty of stuff on the internet to explain these concepts, if you have an open mind.
I don't understand what is prompting people to oppose cleaning up our air? The only people this will inconvenience would be the polluting industries. Do all these anti-global warming people work for coal fired power plants?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/31793&52627
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRadio-The Earth has already heated 2.4 degrees C (masked only by global dimming-smog as a temporary cooling or masking agent which hides the real warming already waiting for us)!
I would like to recommend listening to the above link to an audio file. I know it is long (more than half an hour), but it directly relates to the above discussion of wheither it is too late to reverse course on global warming's catastrophic effects. If the scientist on the audio file is correct, and we've only experienced about 1/3 of the warming we should be experiencing due to the phenomena called "global dimming," then yes we have passed a critical threshold.
Here is what Climate Code Red says (note that they omit the global dimming phenomena, so their estimate of 0.8 degrees C on the first line ought to be triple that, or 2.4 degrees C):
--Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
--There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to "thermal inertia", or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
--If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don't increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
--Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don't increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
By the way, note that 2 degree C figure Code Red arrived at in the last line ought to be 3.6 degrees C taking into consideration the revision of the first line.
Maybe the earthling needs a time out to cool down. the discussion is whether the warming of the last 200 years is caused by human activities or natural events. Personally I believe it's the later and already is cooling. Even warming on balance would be a net gain to most of the world's population. Stopping 90% of the worlds industries to stop emissions is stupidity of the highest order. Money is not real, just numbers on someone's ledger! unreal! just an illusion! I have calluses on my hands from 60years of earning money to pay my bills. I wonder who pays his.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't understand what is prompting people to oppose cleaning up our air? The only people this will inconvenience would be the polluting industries. Do all these anti-global warming people work for coal fired power plants?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a common misconception that cutting back massively on CO2 production (for that is the only way any reductions would occur) will only be beneficial. The fact that you seem to believe that reducing our energy use by 50% to 80% and our petrol use by a similar amount will not cause of massive difficulties tells me you have not thought it through very well.
Yes, we could use renewables or nuclear (best option) but that will take time and a LOT of money. That money will have to come from all of our pockets in taxes or in energy costs.
It is not a simple or easy thing to do, and it will almost certainly cause the developing world to remain in poverty for decades at least, if not centuries, and and thus keep breeding at an exponential rate. The only known (non-forcible) way to prevent this exponential breeding is to raise the level of wealth to ours. The only known way to do that is to burn lots of fossil fuels, as they are so cheap and plentiful.
The other HUGE problem is all the REAL pollution that is still happening and being largely ignored. This pollution is killing people today, and destroying our ecology for decades or more. The more reliance people put on reducing CO2 output, the less they put on those current issues. The other problem is that IF the AGW issue is shown to be a non-starter, the environmentalist movement will be set back for years as people will not risk being conned again.
So, take a deep breath and listen to those who you may not agree with. It is supreme arrogance to assume anyone who does not agree with you is wrong by default, so you must accept that some may be right. Now you know why there just might be a reason to listen, I hope you will.
There exist with in our world certain facts that cannot be denied even by the craziest of scientists. The first is that the green house effect does very much exist. Without the green house effect our tiny little blue planet would loose all of its heat into the vast freezing expanse known as outer space in an attempt by physics(or nature) to equalize a system of high energy into a system of low energy. The green house effect works by allowing heat to pass in to our atmosphere but providing a more difficult escape. So thanks to green house gasses this nice little blue ball stays happily warm day and night most notably in tropical areas. The second truth of our world is that, yes Carbon Dioxide IS a green house gas. And Third our atmosphere has a significantly higher concentration of CO2 than ever recorded at least since the last ice age. (which it should be noted that by definition we are in a descending ice age as there are still ice at the polar caps. There have existed times in geological history where no ice has been at the caps but at the same time there where also no continents in those locations either.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoving on to my next point, Hurricanes. Anyone know what a hurricane is? Its natures way of redistributing energy, and the key word energy meaning heat. IF global climate where to increase then you would most defiantly see a higher number of hurricanes as they rapidly redistribute heat energy, which is why if you've ever been 'near' one the temperature decreases afterward.
My final point. Coal and oil produce CO2. What is coal? A whole lot of plant vegetation that’s been heated, compacted, and burried a LONG time ago. Why is that important? Life is made of carbon, plants breath CO2 and expire O2 all other animals take in O2 and expire CO2 (basic natural science). Physics and chemistry will then tell you that burning coal will release CO2 which is happily used by plants. The Carbon from the CO2 is used by the plants to build and grow which is why way back when the earth had an enormous CO2 level back when life was still swimming the ocean plants grew to massive sizes (also to note that when animals began to wonder onto the land the high concentration of O2 allowed bugs to grow to ridiculous sizes, that’s just a fun bit) So what's the problem? We've provided more support for plants? We can have all the CO2 in the atmosphere we want but if there is not enough plants to break down the amount we put back into the atmosphere, or if the difference between CO2 producing products out numbers O2 producing products we get an enormous amount of CO2 over O2 which results in an enormous amount of Green House Gasses in our atmosphere (supported and confirmed).
So What is the point to these three, probably seemingly disjointed paragraphs? One plus One does not equal One, it equals two. Green house gasses being pumped into the atmosphere in addition to noticeably more erratic weather conditions ? (just because it snoes does not mean temperatures are not changing remember that whole hurricane energy redistribution thing I talked about early? Energy is heat, take heat from one place it leaves somewhere else cooler. It’s the very same properties we use to cool our car engines, CPU fans, and run our Air Conditioners and refrigerators.) Do you really think humanity is too small to make an impact on this little blue ball? China just tried to shoot water into the sky to make it rain in order to reduce the smog for the winter games… LA has had its own weather patterns produced by the smog… The United States of American has 300 million people. Lets count the zeros. 300,000,000. people seem to forget how big that number is in today's age of information where a billion is a decent sized number. 300 million people driving cars and only a small fraction of that managed to pollute an area of Southern California to the point that it produces its own weather patterns… Now imagine not 300 million, but 1 billion, nearly 3 times that many living in an area smaller than the united states all driving cars. That’s 1,000,000,000 people. In our world today, at least 3 times that many people live in industrialized areas driving cars, releasing CO2. That’s 3,000,000,000 people. Try to imagin just 10,000 people in your mind at once.
There exist with in our world certain facts that cannot be denied even by the craziest of scientists. The first is that the green house effect does very much exist. Without the green house effect our tiny little blue planet would loose all of its heat into the vast freezing expanse known as outer space in an attempt by physics(or nature) to equalize a system of high energy into a system of low energy. The green house effect works by allowing heat to pass in to our atmosphere but providing a more difficult escape. So thanks to green house gasses this nice little blue ball stays happily warm day and night most notably in tropical areas. The second truth of our world is that, yes Carbon Dioxide IS a green house gas. And Third our atmosphere has a significantly higher concentration of CO2 than ever recorded at least since the last ice age. (which it should be noted that by definition we are in a descending ice age as there are still ice at the polar caps. There have existed times in geological history where no ice has been at the caps but at the same time there where also no continents in those locations either.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoving on to my next point, Hurricanes. Anyone know what a hurricane is? Its natures way of redistributing energy, and the key word energy meaning heat. IF global climate where to increase then you would most defiantly see a higher number of hurricanes as they rapidly redistribute heat energy, which is why if you've ever been 'near' one the temperature decreases afterward.
My final point. Coal and oil produce CO2. What is coal? A whole lot of plant vegetation that’s been heated, compacted, and burried a LONG time ago. Why is that important? Life is made of carbon, plants breath CO2 and expire O2 all other animals take in O2 and expire CO2 (basic natural science). Physics and chemistry will then tell you that burning coal will release CO2 which is happily used by plants. The Carbon from the CO2 is used by the plants to build and grow which is why way back when the earth had an enormous CO2 level back when life was still swimming the ocean plants grew to massive sizes (also to note that when animals began to wonder onto the land the high concentration of O2 allowed bugs to grow to ridiculous sizes, that’s just a fun bit) So what's the problem? We've provided more support for plants? We can have all the CO2 in the atmosphere we want but if there is not enough plants to break down the amount we put back into the atmosphere, or if the difference between CO2 producing products out numbers O2 producing products we get an enormous amount of CO2 over O2 which results in an enormous amount of Green House Gasses in our atmosphere (supported and confirmed).
So What is the point to these three, probably seemingly disjointed paragraphs? One plus One does not equal One, it equals two. Green house gasses being pumped into the atmosphere in addition to noticeably more erratic weather conditions ? (just because it snoes does not mean temperatures are not changing remember that whole hurricane energy redistribution thing I talked about early? Energy is heat, take heat from one place it leaves somewhere else cooler. It’s the very same properties we use to cool our car engines, CPU fans, and run our Air Conditioners and refrigerators.) Do you really think humanity is too small to make an impact on this little blue ball? China just tried to shoot water into the sky to make it rain in order to reduce the smog for the winter games… LA has had its own weather patterns produced by the smog… The United States of American has 300 million people. Lets count the zeros. 300,000,000. people seem to forget how big that number is in today's age of information where a billion is a decent sized number. 300 million people driving cars and only a small fraction of that managed to pollute an area of Southern California to the point that it produces its own weather patterns… Now imagine not 300 million, but 1 billion, nearly 3 times that many living in an area smaller than the united states all driving cars. That’s 1,000,000,000 people. In our world today, at least 3 times that many people live in industrialized areas driving cars, releasing CO2. That’s 3,000,000,000 people. Try to imagin just 10,000 people in your mind at once.
My ending point is this. Even if Global Warming is only a myth, you do not know that for sure. Looking at humanities past actions it will not be until hurricanes are forming in the Pacific, the polar ice caps are completely gone, and sudden heat and cold fronts are flooding the country side stirring up tornados every day that humanity will finally say "okay maybe this is a real problem". We have the capability to bring emissions of CO2 way down from reducing car emissions to using other forms of energy production. As the "leaders" of the world Why should we be caught in the past when we could be looking for the future. We could transform the global economy by not buying oil and who knows actually performing some kind of humanitarian act by providing alterative methods of energy production.
Plil, suggesting that folks who don't buy in to the AGW hypothesis oppose "cleaning up our air" is a straw man argument. We don't oppose it and haven't. In fact, the air and water are dramatically improved compared when I was growing up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo we need to further reduce certain emissions? Probably. If we do, let's debate that. But let's always consider the costs compared to the projected benefit. And let's not try to mix that into the debate over the AGW hypothesis.
If the present cooling trend that started sometime before 2004 continues even though CO2 levels continue to increase (they are at around 0.04% right now), then the AGW hypothesis is going to be difficult to defend. But the debate over cost vs. benefit of further reductions in certain emissions should continue.
Obama a communist??? Anyone who thinks this has clearly never met a real one. Check out the Web for "delusional disorder".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama a communist??? Clearly, you never met a real one. Check out "delusional disorder" on the Web.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether it's man-made or not is another matter, but the warming is real.
Natedog:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have it reversed; AGW supporters are the ones who constantly argue calamity, politics and histrionics. Read the SCIAM articles recently. Virtually all of them call for catastrophe or that the end that the of the world is nigh. To paraphrase the IPCC has stated, "How can you get attention if you don't create a false sense of crisis?"
I'm glad to see AGW opponents finally coming out on this website and demanding real answers from the AGW crowd. The popular media has let them have their way and be utterly unaccountable for such a long time that the AGW supporters have drunk so much of their own whiskey that they've managed to convince themselves of the veracity of their own arguments because no one has challenged them.
AGW opponents - Keep asking questions; demand real answers that make sense, not regurgitated "Greatest Hits" AGW talking points. At the end of the day if the AGW prove their point through scientifically valid data, so be it. But bullying, fear, politics, ad hominem attacks, misdirection, misinterpretation, appeals to authority, consensus, histrionics and computer models are of no scientific value.
AGW supporters- come up with some REAL evidence.
You want to see economic chaos - wait until it becomes obvious that climate change is past the tipping point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen baser human natures, every man/country for themselves will take over. Funny how the doubters never seem to care about that type of risk.
Shoshin. Nice work. With a couple posts and a pithy "Come up with some REAL evidence" you discount decades of data and untold years of research by thousands of concerned scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, I don't think anyone needs to revisit the question on whether AGW is happening. Despite all your objections, it is well established.
The corrolary questions are:
To what degree are we affecting this, and
What effects will this warming have on our planet's eco-system.
Fear - Next time you are about to walk off a cliff you don't see, your friends should calmly explain to you that your life is in danger? Ha! You would want them to shout and screen and scare you off the course. By your logic, just because they are trying to scare you into stopping, their admonition has no value.
Politics? It is how business is done on a national scale.
Appeals to authority? Guess what, if you get sued, you will find the best lawyer. Sick, the best doctor. So if we want real answers on climate, we will consult the best scientists.
Concensus? I don't know, if 99 out of 100 doctors tell me I need surgery, I think I will use the consensus opinion.
Computer models? Complex systems like climate require smart people to create models based on real science and all the variables we understand. To discount models is short sighted and ignores all the science behind the models.
Funny... I thought Global warming was a LONG term trend, measured in no less that 30 year averages...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAntonioSosa - you should have stopped writing before you got to "Obama is a communist". With that one line, you have discredited the rest of your post. Thanks for saving me the time of debunking you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Japanese goverment scientists have reversed there view on AGW calling it "Ancient Astrology". Have at it AGW supporters; explain why the Japanese are now wrong. As the article states cracks have emerged in the "consensus" surrounding AGW. If you want to bother reading about it it is climatedebatedaily.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is also an article on the same website painting a future of alligators basking in England and Indiana Jones type lost cities if we DON'T ACT NOW!
ildenizen;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for proving my point. From your comments it is apparent that you do not understand what science is. As I stated earlier, please post some facts.
You really sound like an anti-evidence zealot, but even if what you say is true, using solar power for heating is just plain practical and economical right now. It is for me. I have solar water heating systems in place and payback compared to conventions is nearly done already. Then, it's free heat. I suppose you would call me an anti capitalist for being efficient. If so, you may well die off with the other ego-centric head-in-the-sand dinos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with this article and have over reacted to the naysayers. My mistake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing more current sunshine is just plain peaceful and more healthy than burning stuff for energy. I was researching this before AGW was popular. Then, I discovered the rush of fast cars and airplanes for awhile. I know I am forgiven because it brought me here.
Perhaps the real goal of renewables would be better served by an adgenda of peaceful and healthy sustainable energy. The ones who want to collect all the marbles will die away from disuse eventually anyway.
I really don't have a problem with global warming and not being a climate scientist, I am willing to take them at their word that the earth is warming and the temporary respite related to the sunspot cycle we now have will end in a couple of years. I have a problem with global warming alarmists trying to tell everyone else how they should live their lives. The earth has been warming and cooling for all of its existence. It has been warmer than now and colder than now without human intervention. What are these alarmists and their chief spokesman, Al Gore, promising? If we follow all their prescriptions, will the earth remain in the current temperature range? It will never cool from this range and never get warmer? I know, I know, it will take time. But, if they succeed in all their goals, what will we have? A terrarium? Is it at all possible to make the earth into a closed system? That has never happened. What will they do if the overdue ice age starts to appear? Is it any less disastrous? What would we be experiencing now, if we hadn't had global warming and the current cyclical temporary cooling occurred on top of a cooler climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCandide:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFear mongering is not science either.
solarmanke;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that you are not making the mistake of assuming that people who don't believe in AGW are automatically unwashed heathens when it comes to the environment. This is patently not true. What my concern is, is that the amount of time, effort and money wasted on pursuing the false proposition of AGW means that there is less time , effort and money available for pursuing real issue, such as solar energy, wind power etc.
I am completely and utterly supportive of a clean environment and sustainable energy, and I am quite certain that if the same question was asked of any AGW opponent, the answer would be the same.
The issue here is the false science of AGW masquerading as scientific truth hinders and hobbles real progress, much as phrenology held back psychiatry early in the 20th century.
"You want to see economic chaos - wait until it becomes obvious that climate change is past the tipping point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen baser human natures, every man/country for themselves will take over. Funny how the doubters never seem to care about that type of risk."
But this is speculation. There is no hard evidence that what you claim will happen, will happen at all. It is not in any way obvious that Global Warming is man made, increasing its rate, or dangerous in any way.
Do you propose that we cripple our economy based on speculation?
I really don't have a problem with global warming and not being a climate scientist, I am willing to take them at their word that the earth is warming and the temporary respite related to the sunspot cycle we now have will end in a couple of years. I have a problem with global warming alarmists trying to tell everyone else how they should live their lives. The earth has been warming and cooling for all of its existence. It has been warmer than now and colder than now without human intervention. What are these alarmists and their chief spokesman, Al Gore, promising? If we follow all their prescriptions, will the earth remain in the current temperature range? It will never cool from this range and never get warmer? I know, I know, it will take time. But, if they succeed in all their goals, what will we have? A terrarium? Is it at all possible to make the earth into a closed system? That has never happened. What will they do if the overdue ice age starts to appear? Is it any less disastrous? What would we be experiencing now, if we hadn't had global warming and the current cyclical temporary cooling occurred on top of a cooler climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument about whether global warming exists is missing the point about energy policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing fossil fuels as an energy source is not sustainable, unhealthy secondary to the pollution caused, and leaves us dependently on sources in highly unstable parts of the world.
In other words, we should to move to clean sustainable sources of energy anyway.
Two hundred years is an extremely short period by cosmic standards. The fifth extinction took about 40 thousand years to run its course. We are living the sixth, brought about by our species by overpopulation and reducing biodiversity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution established a balance over millions of years, we have upset this balance by firstly becoming an agricultural society. We then established ideas of good and bad life forms. Weeds and pests were bad, grain, fruit trees and agrarian animals were good.
Finally came the industrial revolution, which is global. Industry required massive population growth to serve it and act as a market for its ever-expanding production. The greenhouse gasses scientists are discussing are not just CO2 but include methane, all the nitrous oxides, nitrous fluorides, chlorine, bromine and a multitude of other gasses that did not exist prior to industrialisation.
Atomic weapons testing and power have resulted in C14 levels increasing 900% (refer November 28, 2005 Sciam - Biology Cold War Clues.)
You claim it is already cooling, I have just lived through one of the hottest summers I have ever experienced and I aint young! 48C is hot! Tell my country-folk that its cooling after hundreds of us died in fires and thousands have lost homes.
I am a scientist, so dont take my word for money matters but I did loose almost a million in 1987-88 but just about 350k this time round (older and wiser). Do yourself a favour watch this video on Youtube: You probably would not have calluses on your hand if you had and knew the true nature of money.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
AS declares that MAN-MADE global warming is a hoax (emphasis added). Culpability is not the point; the temperatures are rising, ice sheets breaking up, Greenland melting, heatwaves, storms, etc. If humanity is LUCKY we caused it -- then we have more leverage. The environment is not court of law, if the temperatures keep rising, it will be catastrophic for humanity even if we are not responsible. There is no question that lower levels of CO2 will moderate warming and that's something we can affect (unlike water vapor and the clouds). The sooner and the more dramatic the intervention the better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conspiracy theorists can't be reasoned with. They are suffering from paranoid delusions. Dugs might be able to help but who cares. They’re not worth the effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConspiracies are the ultimate non-falsifiable hypothesis. Any tiny bit of data that can be twisted or turned to the conspiracy theorist’s agenda is incontrovertible proof of their hypothesis. A lack of evidence is proof of a conspiracy to hide the evidence, or suppress research. Evidence that disproves their hypothesis is also proof of a conspiracy because one can easily show how the researchers benefited in some way from the research whether it is for economic gain or power or ego. Of course there is very little science done where the researcher is not paid for their work, and that includes those that are attempting to prove global warming is a hoax (let alone the book deals and publicity in the popular media). But hypocrisy and contradiction don’t bother the conspiracy theorist because they believe their adversaries are fighting dirty therefore turn about is fair play. Similarly, their denials and accusations won’t stop them for asking for help when and if worse comes to worse. They are like the corporations who’ve railed against government intervention but have no problem taking handouts when their own corruption gets them into trouble.
Unfortunately, sciam’s comment section has become a soapbox for the conspiracy theorists that would normally be marginalized for their psychosis’s. No intelligent dialog here, just the ravings of madmen (and women).
Warmers talk science and realists talk politics, please!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAl Gore talks science, please! check the UK judgment against his fabricated claims. Al is all politics and no substance.
Jim Hansen talks science, please! Actively campaigning for civil disobedience.
Michael Mann’s hockey stick, please! A total fabrication and politics to try and erase the medieval warm period.
Steig et al including Mann fabricating Antarctic temperatures, please! This is politics to try to remove the warmers Achilles heal, Antarctic cooling.
Please address with science my four points in an earlier post.
Why does the man-made global warming hoax threaten our future and the future of our children? Because, based on a lie, frauds like Obama have already wasted billions of dollars that could have been used to solve real problems. Because, based on a lie, frauds like Obama plan to steal from our children and grandchildren to carry out unproductive plans to “control CO2.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt’s a threat because, based on a lie, frauds like Obama will limit development, increase the cost of energy and thus force factories and companies to close, and multiply poverty and unemployment. Because, based on a lie, frauds like Obama will prevent the U.S. from becoming energy independent, and leave Americans at the mercy of scum like Hugo Chavez.
The global warming pseudo-science has been compared to Hitler’s eugenics and could cause much more damage than eugenics. Eugenics (selective breeding) and man-made global warming are similar in many respects. Both ideas were introduced by "scientists," advanced by politicians, popularized by the media, embraced as a moral necessity, and both are extremely harmful.
"I'm glad to see AGW opponents finally coming out on this website and demanding real answers from the AGW crowd."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the problem right there. The scientists who study climate change overwhelming agree that climate change is occurring and that it is largely due to human activities. The people asking them to prove it are those that do not seem to grasp the fact that the scientists have already proved it and that the research is readily available to anyone who cares to access it.
There is one way and one way only to challenge a scientific theory and that is with another scientific theory. To say that you just are not convinced is a completely useless argument which is of no value to anyone.
Seems that the sceptics are out in full force as usual. Must be governed by fear. I wonder if any of them have noticed that the poles are melting very rapidly and have been for this decade? Anthropogenic or not, it is a big problem. The sceptics will be ill prepared so we needn't worry about them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm impressed, Rational people are starting to speak up. Human caused Global Warming is a con job to make Strong and Gore billions a year in renting out carbon credits that they control and own. Credits created by and enforced by government fiat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is weather scientists do not accept as fact human caused global warming is real, and do not accept as fact that warming runaway is likely.
People that use computer models to prove their point are always suspect as creation of the program's internal algrythms can give you the answer you want rather then the correct answer. Modern weather models have a difficult time accuratlly predicting weather months in advance, years no way. Did the model that predicted runaway warming in 2004, predict the real events of the last 4 years? I think not.
I have been working to clean up the enviroment for over 30 years. (I have a fume scrubber patent). I know something about the real facts. Runaway human caused global warming is a religion not a fact.
The real problem faceing AWG proponets is their window of opportunity to take control is now. If they do not succeed by the end of next year the end of every thing they have pushed for is ended. Their grand new world will end. Prince Philip of Winsor said last summer that they had untel december 2010 to succeed or their world would come to an end. Maybe they are right about their world, I can't wait.
May then we can get on with real work of cleaning up the world which will require a lot of new energy.
There are numerous risk factors that are not being adequately studied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Northern Boreal Forest which is responsible for a large part of the worlds CO2 to Oxygen respiration is getting sick from insect infestation. Large areas are already dead. This is bad. Worse is that the Carbon locked in those trees is in serious danger of release. Dead Forests are primed for Forest Fires. Other Forests are also suffering to various degrees. It is possible that forest death and combustion will add to atmospheric CO2 in any future year and it is already reducing the natural Carbon Sink.
Melts of Permafrost and Ocean Sediments are happening. They add Greenhouse Gas in amounts that threaten to turn into a unstoppable multiplier. Our human produced Greenhouse Gases could become completely unimportant. Initial warming could be the most important source of more warming.
Changing seasons and weather threatens to melt the ice sheets. As snow and ice cover is removed from ocean and land, exposed water and earth absorbs more heat, for more warming. The arctic is warming many times faster than the rest of the world. In a worst case scenario, a warm year sends a Hurricane far beyond historical range and inches of warm rain are dropped on Greenland. In that year and that one week we might see compounded increases in Ocean level from Greenland melt.
Ocean level rise is most dangerous because the warming world will include a warming Ocean. Expansion of Oceans is mostly hidden because such a large portion of the water column is under 4 Celsius. Warming up to 4 Celsius causes water to contract due to the anomalous negative expansion coefficient that allows Ice to float. Above 4 Celsius expansion becomes a serious hazard. The Ocean depth is more than 3200 meters or 2 miles. Very little expansion is needed on 2 miles to create an extra foot of depth. How much research is being done to find out what the volume at temperature 3D map of the ocean looks like and how it is changing?
If warming brings more severe storms that adds more storm rollers, large waves that swap warm surface water with deep cold water. This warms the Ocean water columns lower levels. It also cools the surface water which increases it's ability to absorb heat from the atmosphere.
Just exactely how is enviromentalism the equivelent to communism? It's absolutely absurd. Enviromentalism is not a social movement, it is a scientific feild of study directely related to the manner in which the earth functions as an organism, and supports us. It is also not a hoax, there is nothing secretive or ill intentioned about it. However if you take the word "hoax" out of the sentence you will be correct. Man- made global warming is a terrible danger to future generations. And if we continue to act like close minded people, who simply seek to live in bliss while the future of the earth hangs in the balance, then we will have disgraced ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatedog:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientists who study climate change do overwhelmingly agree that the climate is changing. I agree that the climate is changing. All of the people who oppose the hypothesis of AGW agree that the climate is changing. The Earth's climate has been and will always be changing.
The issue is that the overwhelming number of scientists do not agree that human activities are responsible. I do not agree that human activities are responsible. People who oppose AGW do not agree that human activities are responsible.
And science forces people who support the AGW hypothesis to prove it; that is the way it works. Proof doesn't mean that you have a computer program that spits out a result, or that a glacier is melting, or that a rabbit was seen running into the bush. All of these could have a myriad of causes.
The fact that increased CO2 is correlatable with increased temperatures is interesting, and was undoubtedly the impetus for all of the AGW research. But the finding that the increased CO2 has been demonstrated to LAG temperatures by 800 years kills the AGW theory dead.
The question that should be asked (and is consistent with all known data) is: What warming event that occurred 800 years ago are we seeing echoed in the increased CO2 levels of today? The Medieval Warm Period perhaps? Well that is just plain too simple and takes all of the fun out of everything. But it is utterly consistent with the data, and no computer models are required.
"There is one way and one way only to challenge a scientific theory and that is with another scientific theory. To say that you just are not convinced is a completely useless argument which is of no value to anyone."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got that right -- and good on you for saying so in such a blunt, succinct manner.
Of course, it's possible, even probable, that the AGW folks also populate the group that believes, for instance, all the footage of space exploration is filmed in Hollywood studios. A sub-set likely believes the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe, that stars are mere holes in some shroud covering the universe, holes that let the "Light of God" (or whatever) show through.
The one concession I am willing to make is that we don't know yet how quickly these effects are happening. That lack further means we can't be 100% certain -- yet -- what the cumulative effects might be. And it is true, we have to surmise, that we don't know, precisely, the ratio of human-induced global warming and naturally-induced cycles in the phenomena associated with GW.
I recently read in another venue an assertion that the Greenland ice covering not only isn't melting, but had held steady overall and even increased in certain places (local scale ones). The writer even provided a link, which I followed. His own link completely disagreed with his thesis. Then I looked at satellite imagery going back decades from NASA, ESA, etc., and even to my untrained eye, the retreat of Greenland's ice cover over the past half century was a "glimpse of the blindingly obvious."
Of course, maybe those images are also Hollywood fakes, right?
A number of people I know who argue GW is a myth point out the natural cycles that occur, triumphantly emphasizing that of course I accept there have been ice ages, as if my acceptance of that means we can just sit back and be complacent. They're stumped when I point out that the temperature change that occurred when the last ice age ended took around 4,000 YEARS to take place -- while the temperature increase in the past mere century or so has equaled that which took *40* centuries to occur last time Earth burped.
But forget global warming. I want cleaner air and water, period, not greenhouse sunsets.
Mekhong Kurt;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPollution has nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis. Ending pollution is an excellent goal, but the AGW hypothesis has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Your comment about "greenhouse sunsets" shows how effective the Pro-AGW movement has been in instilling fear and propaganda into the debate. Science in the pro AGW camp is like Elvis; it left the building long ago.
There is a lot of Sycophancy involved in the Denial movement. There are many rich people who like the idea of Global Warming and there are a lot of people who just love to associate themselves with rich people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does wealth like Global Warming?
It is going to make changes happen, and there will be money to be made from those changes.
Hurricanes will rip the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts apart? Rebuilding is good for business.
Millions of people could be forced to relocate? Housing and Employing them in their new locations will be good for business.
Food shortages are going to become a frequent problem? Prices and Profits will rise which is good for business.
People will die from several of the complications of global warming? Overpopulation limits per capita income and consumer spending power over much of the globe. Since the most vulnerable areas are already unable to afford participation in the global economy, their deaths are good for business.
The debate over global warmining is no longer scientific. The scientific debate is over. I learned this while tracking down some of the stuff the conservatives present as evidence. Inveritably it was easily explained away and OFTEN a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Not once was I ever presented with even a shallow understanding of the real evidence for global warming. Google a few of these assertions; you will quickly see this for yourself. After that, don't waste your time with them anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy favorite, last ditch ploy of the conservatives is to deny the existence of concensus in science.
Even if there is no such thing as global warming, I think we can all agree that pollution==BAD! Something should still be done to keep people from poisoning the air, land and water we all rely on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul from Halifax;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments are another prime example of what is wrong within the pro-AGW movement. Facts and science have taken a back seat to politics, rhetoric and fearmongering. Everything that you espouse begins with the assumption that AGW opponents are not environmentalists, nor humanists. Excellent tactics from a Goebbel, shameful from a scientist.
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep describing the very attributes of AGW opponents. Who has the science to back up there claims? The scientists do. And what is the scientific consensus on the subject? That AGW is real.
I find it funny that here, we're on a science news site, but yet half of you choose to ignore the very science you're reading. You also don't fact check anything you read. So before you recite the same debunked statements again, please, please, read some "peer reviewed" science and fact check. And this does not mean regular newspapers like the NYT.
If the current media could get half the AGW studies they report on correct, I'd be very impressed. Instead we have a media that doesn't understand the science, and special interest groups putting out propaganda to influence the masses which based on this blog, certainly are working.
To sum up, Shoshin, you give yourself too much credit, and too little to the scientists. Apparently you, have found the loophole needed to refute the whole AGW hypothesis. You continue to recite debunked denier talking points and you blatantly misunderstand the science. Personally I find it appalling so many of you think you're smarter than the sum of scientists on the IPCC. If you don't know the intricacies of a climate model, your OPINION on AGW isn't worth beans (so to speak).
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep describing the very attributes of AGW opponents. Who has the science to back up there claims? The scientists do. And what is the scientific consensus on the subject? That AGW is real.
I find it funny that here, we're on a science news site, but yet half of you choose to ignore the very science you're reading. You also don't fact check anything you read. So before you recite the same debunked statements again, please, please, read some "peer reviewed" science and fact check. And this does not mean regular newspapers like the NYT.
If the current media could get half the AGW studies they report on correct, I'd be very impressed. Instead we have a media that doesn't understand the science, and special interest groups putting out propaganda to influence the masses which based on this blog, certainly are working.
To sum up, Shoshin, you give yourself too much credit, and too little to the scientists. Apparently you, have found the loophole needed to refute the whole AGW hypothesis. You continue to recite debunked denier talking points and you blatantly misunderstand the science. Personally I find it appalling so many of you think you're smarter than the sum of scientists on the IPCC. If you don't know the intricacies of a climate model, your OPINION on AGW isn't worth beans (so to speak).
Let's put the Climate Change and AGW evidence in the balance: Despite colossal private funding, the AGW brigade have produced scant refereed evidence to back up their claims. They deny climate change, but the climate has been changing continuously for millions of years. What the IPCC is saying is that at present it is man who is causing accelerated climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd temperatures are going up and up!
eco-steve;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisehhh.... not exactly..., temperatures are not "going up and up". They are actually going down. But that's OK, because in the pro - AGW camp, a cooling of the globe is actually evidence of Global Warming. So, warmer means warming and cooling means warming.
"What we have here is a failure to discriminate." (apologies to Cool Hand Luke)
Shoshin --
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still imagine pollution to be part (but only part) of the debate.
As for my comment regarding "greenhouse sunsets," I should have clarified that my concern in this regard has little, if anything, to do with much of what anyone on any side of the issue has said to date. It's based on direct observation. A few times I've actually seen sunsets and sunrises when wispy clouds have been a bright metallic green, glowing, and on even fewer occasion, that green mixed with an equally bright, dark, metallic blue. A quick check of the science showed just how rare that is, and what causes it.
My motive was one I left unexpressed, though I suppose it's pretty obvious: it's difficult, at best, to argue with the notion of, say, cleaner air than we presently have, and if the Luddites can be shamed into going along with the concept of cleaning up the air, it just may be their part of the effort will help combat global warming -- however unwittingly on the Flat Earth Society's part.
What those folks instill in me far more than fer is . . . well, sadness. Sadness that there are those who willfully and forcefully defend the stand "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts."
Sigh . . .
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize for deliberately overstating the position in order to make the perception simple and hopefully clearer. There are elements of that taint being laid on the global warming skeptics and you need to know that is how you are being seen in darkest moments of frustration. But there is perhaps a sliver of truth to this perception.
I don't claim that this malignant attitude of the wealth first "common" sense mob is at all calculated. Many who aspire to the commonly accepted definitions of success naturally follow those who have achieved that success.
And those who wield wealth do not see that they are using a weapon. They are purely and instinctively doing what any animal would do. Protecting their own future against competitors. The competitive mindset is the problem. This is not win lose situation. This is a win win or lose lose world.
There is a need for EVERYONE to respect and enable others within the boundaries that they can each accept. I believe that there is a better future for everyone just ahead. Humanity IS able to cope with almost anything and thrive against any adversity. There is a set of potentially very serious problems with climate change. Preparation isn't just about keeping ourselves from losing more than we can afford. We need to prepare because in spite of the doom and gloom that we seem to face, with preparation, almost everyone is likely to actually end up WINNING.
Face the Fear. Break it into simple problems. Solve the problems. Eliminate the fear.
Wow, the Medieval Warming Period again. Don't you denialists ever do any research? That so-called period applies to one place and time. There is no evidence that it applied globally or that its affects were continuous, which makes it irrelevant to the current argument. And the old argument about the 800 year CO2 lag? Don't you know that the reason for the lag is that the rise in CO2 concentrations in past warming periods followed in the wake of other processes, which actually initiated the warming. That is, in those cases the rise in CO2 levels was caused by warming, but after 800 years it was the CO2 itself that was the major factor warming the earth. Light a campfire. Once the fuel starts burning, it provides most of the heat. But the first cause of the fire, is you lighting it, you setting it ablaze. After awhile the natural properties of the fuel mean that it, not you, creates most of the warming. Most of the warming in the past was caused by CO2 as well, but the difference between then and now, it was not the CO2 in the air which initiated the process. This time it is, because of the effects of human industrialization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming IS real - you may scoff all you like, it won't change the future one iota... When was the last time you saw temps of 117 degrees in Australia???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is becoming common practice for reports such as this to completely disregard the damaging effect of smog in the atmosphere. There is telling scientific evidence these massive events, of which there are many, are causing catastrophic changes to weather systems world wide. So instead of flogging the CO2 bit, ad nauseam, look outside the square and see the real culprit. Then and only then can a sensible debate take place on how to rid ourselves of these dreadful menaces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFather Theo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you a climate scientist?
It never ceases to amaze me when religious people insist on forcing their fantasies on reality-based people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFather Theo;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's quite the circular argument that you've got going there. I tried to follow it but I went around and around and around....
The problem is that it pre-supposes some CO2 related effect to start the process and then a secondary "forcing effect" of CO2. The origin of this "forcing effect" is spurious as it was not found in nature, but was created by computer programmers as a sub-routine within their modelling programs in order to get (cook) the results to match up to historical real world temperatures.
To the best of my knowledge, the "forcing effect of CO2" has never been detected in the atmosphere, or anywhere else in the real world. This may explain why the present computer models are unable to model the past 10 year cooling cycle as the "forcing" sub-routine keeps calling for higher and higher temperatures. Given our present 10 year cooling trend in the face of higher CO2 levels, this is clearly nonsensical.
This implies that the computer models are fundamentally flawed, and therefore the AGW hypotheis is also flawed as it's temperature projections are based solely on the extrapolations of these computer programs.
Now, if someone has some real data that contradicts my above statement, I will gladly reconsider my opinion, as that is what scientists do when faced with more and better explanations. Contrary to popular opining, AGW oppponents do not cling to conventional dogma, but we are from Missouri.
Just as an aside, I find the above article quite amusing, as it projects dire consequences witha temperature rise of as little as 1 degree C. Let's just all stop and give that the sniff test: Does it make any common sense that life on this planet is so fragile that a 1 degree change could wipe it out? What I see is that the originally projected 4-5 degree changes are being abandoned as so utterly unrealistic that the pro-AGW crowd now needs to lower to bar to continue to create hysteria and fear. Keep lowering the bar much more and eventually we'll all stumble over it and the AGW crowd will cry "Vindication!"
All this blog is lacking is Barney and Sponge Bob Squarepants weighing in on Global Warming. When did the veracity of scientific hypothesis become the sporting ground of rank amateurs? Apparently with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of any brand of pseudo truth one cares to embrace. Science must now be filtered through the prisim of politics and how one "feels" on some existential level about current scientific discoveries. Makes one long for the days of Galileo and being placed under house arrest for subversive theories contrary to established thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of the causes, which are many and varied, we should have gotten away from this tired debate years ago. The fact of the matter is that too many people in the world stand to profit from continued ignorance of the fact that we are contributing to our own demise by playing the same economic games we started way back when.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese people don't want global warming to be accepted as a fact and they have taken measures to see that it isn't, and unfortunately their influence is great. So here we are, twenty years later, STILL debating a topic with real and easily foreseeable consequences that nobody with an ounce of decent scientific rigor could fail to notice. However, most people neither possess nor want such rigor in their lives because they cannot bear to be faced with uncomfortable truths.
I see no end to the debate, however much I wish for it, and in the meantime the world will continue to burn until somebody can step forward and reverse the momentum. I sincerely hope that day has arrived, but it's too early to know.
galaxyman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there anything that would make you change your mind? 10 years of cooling 20? 100? Or is your faith in AGW unshakeable?
It bothers me when people profess to believe in a scientific theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's get something straight. These objects of great forethought and ingenuity are theories, not religions to be believed in. One does not beleive
in evolution. Likewise, it is not possible to beleive in the theory of anthropogenic global warming even if one fervently desired to do so. Earth scientists, or true scientists anyway, are not seeking converts. Their only occupation in this society is to take a thorough assessment of the reputable scientific evidence which is available and construct a theory which explains the evidence in the most direct and elegant fashion possible. The theory must also be able to be proved false. (Karl Popper).
Now, to the best of my knowledge, this has been done. At that point it is the providence of the political arena to decide if the public will or financial means exist to implement policy based on conclusions drawn from the theory. If the public will does not exist, so be it. It is not the mission of scientists to "save" the planet. Let's think correctly now. It was the same scientific community that graciously gave the political sector nuclear technology, in particular nuclear weapons. This was done, perhaps with some misgivings, with the full knowledge that these weapons could threaten or at least undermine the survival of the entire human race.
Nobody beleives in the theory that explains nuclear fission or fusion.
Their are no disciples. No doubt, the theory will be replaced when a more complete model of nuclear particle interaction is found to supersede the Standard Model. This won't dispel the nightmare of nuclear holocaust or destroy the dreams of those who still hope to replace fossil fuel energy with advanced nuclear reactor designs. In the same way, the underlying tenets to the theory of AGW are sound. It lies to the political arena to practice the art of what is possible.
Shoshin, one does not 'change their mind' in regard to the facts. In this case, measurements, statistical data, climate models -not just from those that study weather, or geology, but from every scientific pursuit that touches the living environment- and all of them are pointing in the same direction. One may claim that they have somehow 'fixed the system' to produce results that support preconcieved notions, but to imagine such activity on this scale is not only ridiculous, it is an act of outrageous slander against the pursuit of science itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this world, we don't listen to -people-. We listen to numbers. And the numbers are not consulted once, or ten times, but thousands, maybe millions of times, over many regimes, imbalances, and other situations we suspect might influence data. And from those readings a theory has been made, and refined, and further examined until one conclusion has risen above all others. The fact that you might not like the conclusion means nothing to anyone. It simply is what it is, and it is not a matter now of debating the truth of it, but to decide what we are going to do about it.
You call us mongers of fear and destruction. I suggest that instead of trying to shoot the messengers you direct your energies toward finding a solution, along with the rest of us.
It would be intereseting to see the results of refereeing of many of these comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGalaxyman;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo then your mind is made up and nothing can change it. I just wanted to clarify that.
Lord Kelvin once said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
A lot of environmental issues stand regardless of the debate e.g. deaths from coal fired power plants. That being said, the major thing that bothers me in the IPCC Technical Paper VI (anyone read it?) is that it elevates climate model simulation to the second point in the Executive Summary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComputer simulations are limited in their power to predict unless dealing with limited domains e.g. objects in a wind tunnel. On open ended simulations, the results are sensitive to a limited number of inputs and notorious for their inaccuracy. We never hear about the sensitivities of the climate models but we do hear that they are being constantly "updated" i.e. they can be made to reflect reality but not to predict it with any accuracy. Given that lots of decisions ($$$$$) flow from the results, shouldn't we have some skepticism about following them so closely?
If the oceans are rising shouldn't we be building arks (LOL) or at the very least, a lot of dikes? Should the Dutch be consulted or put in charge?
Saying that tens of thousands of scientists believe in global warming sounds like social science. Saying that thousands have results that confirm the hypothesis sounds more like science. In that vein, what is the falsifiable hypothesis that they have been testing? Are there two giant side-by-side domes, with adjustable atmospheres that allow experimentation on, and demonstration of, the premise(s)? or how did we settle the science issues other than with a poll?
I don't know about you, but I like global warming and am waiting for the days that I can enjoy the beaches of sunny Canada and swim in the Arctic Ocean without worrying about those polar bears. I'm not rich and don't have any beachfront property, nor any property in Florida, so I don't stand to lose anything. The property I have is inland and on higher ground. I actually stand to gain from global warming. Why should I support the rich with my tax dollars to preserve their beachfront estates?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe alarmists are the ones claiming that taking action against global warming will cause economic problems. The only ones who will be hurt will be the oil/coal/gas companies. Instead of giving our money to these guys, we will have more money for other things, which will do a better job of stimulating the economy than all the government payouts to date.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, please, check your facts. If you dispute the way that NASA computes global avg. temperature, then explicitly state that (and give me your justifications). This is the current global avg. temp data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
and some info on the program here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ .
Now there is a direct link to show your 10 year cooling trend allegation is bogus.
You say to the best of your knowledge, you aren't aware of any causal link between CO2 and GW. Apparently, you aren't aware of it, but thankfully the climate scientists are.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
You can start reading on page 36 for the "Causes of Change" portion of the document.
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, please, check your facts. If you dispute the way that NASA computes global avg. temperature, then explicitly state that (and give me your justifications). This is the current global avg. temp data (which are up to date as of 1/09):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
and some info on the program here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ .
Now there is a direct link to show your 10 year cooling trend allegation is bogus.
You say to the best of your knowledge, you aren't aware of any causal link between CO2 and GW. Apparently, you aren't aware of it, but thankfully the climate scientists are.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
You can start reading on page 36 for the "Causes of Change" portion of the document.
Sorry for the double posts. Having browser issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAntonio and friends- We are not the enemy. Scientists, journalists, environmentalists are on the whole caring people. We are not easily controlled or duped as we think for ourselves, question what is said and try to remain open-minded. Many of us are generally satisfied with less and share what we have. This is why I did not continue with studies in Law and Economics, I changed my career focus to health and healing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtinctions are accellerating, and we in Australia have broken all temperature records in the last 5 years. We are in a 12 year drought which despite a La Nina cycle (associated with more rainfall and cooler temperatures) shows little sign of easing; our largest river, The Murray, has almost stopped flowing a number of times in recent years and we just lost 240 people, burnt to death in the most fierce fires ever recorded in Victoria. All this occurred whilst the north of the country had the most extensive flood ever recorded here, an area the size of Texas underwater since January, many parts are still flooded and isolated. All this is consistent with forcasts from the IPCC (you can read a summary of projected consequences in the book 6 degrees: Our future on a hotter planet, by science journalist Mark Lynas.
I dont expect everyone will agree on these things- its just too hard to get your head around the idea that the engine of our growth and prosperity also has sown the seeds of our problems. But I look forward to cleaner quieter lighter cars, my own contentment with what I have, less waste and pollution, no extinctions, poopulation stabilisation, better health, etc. Its utopian to expect this to all happen, but its right to want and hope it to happen and compassionate to change your mindset and help it come about, at least in your own neck of the woods.
IN reply to oldestgeek at 05:12 PM on 03/03/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only point you can make by noting the inaccuracy of computer simulations is that we can only trust that temperature increase is likely and that is as much as they can really tell us.
To carry your point a step further, the computer models have generally proven to be on the low side. In several cases this was deliberate. Runs have been redone to steer for less alarming predictions because of fear of submitting something that the scientists THOUGHT looked unrealistically bad. Human error.
With regard to dikes or arks? Both of those are likely.
Go crazy at this site and set the sea level all the way up to 14 meters and look at areas of interest to you. My province, Nova Scotia changes from a Peninsula to an Island for example. 14 meters would be the result of about +8 degrees rise in temperature. This would include melting Greenlands Ice Sheet and a large part of Antartica, but mostly the rise is caused by expansion of the warmer oceans. We won't see this for more than 100 years because it should take a while to warm up the Oceans.
http://flood.firetree.net/
Dikes can create more time for adjustment but will be temporary solution.
A solution to refugee housing might be to create Liberty ship style floating apartment blocks. They would be temporary housing and transportation to a more permanent home at the same time. Arks.
And the falsifiable Hypothesis? Would it be as warm without our Greenhouse Gas Wastes? No. With those gases eliminated from the simulations the warming is not dangerous. With those gases it is dangerous.
I actually find most of the arguments that attempt to disprove the global warming hilarious. That doesn't mean that they aren't also sad and annoying. It also doesn't mean I think they belong here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would all like to believe that the world is not on the brink of horrible changes. We can't always believe just what we want to believe.
To the argument against periods of cooling within a warming trend. You better never invest in the stock market. You would have to sell every time your stocks dropped a little.
A year of cooling caused by warming? Use any combo of these. Increased cloud cover from higher rates of evaporation blocks more sunlight. Increased Arctic Melts causes more cold ocean current flow and a stronger arctic jet stream in the atmosphere. More forest fires create enough smoke to dim the sunlight. Higher wind currents as part of increased weather activity removes surface heat to the upper atmosphere more efficiently, and increases evaporation cooling. Increased precipitation carries more heat into rivers and out into the oceans. Increased wind/weather over oceans creates more deep roller waves which mix the water column more than normal. Mixing the water column carries more heated surface water into the cold ocean depths and cools the surface by lifting and mixing cold water from the deeper ocean. That is probably the biggest chiller for the world currently. It could be hiding a whole lot of the warming by shifting it to the deeper ocean. 1% more mixing as a result of an increase in weather we could barely notice would hide almost a Celcius degree of warming. Don't damn me for giving you a ballpark estimate. Trust me that I want to see a more accurate assessment and would be very happy to see any sources if anyone know some.
Some of these responses confirm my conviction that humanity deserves the destruction that it's bringing on itself. No tears from this quarter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, it is precisely brecause we have no loyalties that we are viewed as dangerous. The pursuit of knowledge has often uncovered things that are deadly to the causes of many (particularly those in positions of power or influence that is at least partially built on the ignorance of lesser priviledged types). One need only consider the responses of the religious community immediately following the Rennaissance to see the truth of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for global warming, everyone knows that calling for change ultimately means putting non-renewable energy providers out of business indefinitely. Do you really think they'll take that lying down? The reason this debate is still going on is precisely because they don't want any kind of consensus to appear where it really matters - the general populace.
Worse yet, we have people (who in the interest of good taste I shall refrain from naming) who infiltrate boards of scientific discussion -most notably this very comment thread- with so-called science-backed arguments who really want nothing more than to erode the common man's trust of science a little further in the hopes of keeping some small measure of influence or, at the worst, so that they can laugh at the mess they have created. Maybe some of them do it unintentionally, but their blatant refusal to recognize the difference between fact and opinion, as well as their stubborn positions against viewing actual data, give me doubt that that is so.
Any good theory should be able to make verifiable predictions. AGW, if correct should be able to predict the net global temperature as a function of the percentage of greenhouse gases contributed by human activity to the earth's atmosphere and elapsed time. This function could be contrasted with the baseline function which includes no human contribution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would expect any good model of AGW should be able to do this with an error of +- 5%. Of course how does one go about defining baseline conditions ? I expect that would be the Earth's atmosphere in the pre-industrial era. Of course even then, as always, the Earth's climate has been highly variable. I would look for a particular signature that defines the present age as compared to previous eras. It reminds me in a way of the first attempts to figure out analytically the Earth's tides which literally have dozens of gravitational components. But it has been done to a high degree of precision, even though the physical situation has chaotic components.
In other words the science does exist to prove AGW false if indeed it is.
Here is a scholar who says it all far more eloquently and succinctly than I can. AGW is a myth. Have fun arguing about AGW guys. There's no story here other than the vagaries and fears of human nature, and I feel no need to discuss this issue anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5441
Have a good life.
And a host of studies, including a recent one from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have shown that global warming is already worse than predicted even a few years ago. The question is: Will it be catastrophic or not? "We've dawdled, and if we dawdle more it will get even worse," Schneider says. "It's time to move."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to cherry pick your article then I will refer back to this article. This is what we are trying to comment on.
Shoshin, you want to use points from your article?
I agree that to prove their accuracy Computer models need to be able to model past climate changes. They are doing that now.
I agree that there are some benefits to warming and increased CO2. I live in Canada. Do I need to say more?
I agree there have been many errors in judgement and science. The answer is to improve the science and allow it to speak for itself. That should be all that anyone wants.
And the question of what happens with increased water vapor is one that I consider extremely important. In the short term it can create more cloud cover and a cooling period by dimming sunlight that reaches the surface. This is the negative feedback that your scientist talks about unless I am mistaken.
What is not mentioned is that with increased warming, particularly of the upper atmosphere, the condensation points needed for cloud formation require more and more water vapor before they are reached. You see more clear sky days with plenty of humidity, but that humidity only holds the heat. That water vapor is the real global warming gas that we need to fear. And not just because of its warming potential. That increased holding capacity for moisture also increases the threat of rain happening in flooding downpours.
Also, unless I am mistaken your guy doesn't say it is a myth. He says that he has doubts about it and wants better research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just seems like you are reading it to find the things you want to see.
For all of you out there that think global warming is a hoax, opinions are like those you-know-whats. Every body has one. The expirement is in progress and all we have to do is stand by and watch what the results are. If you are right all will be ok. If you are wrong, millions will die. I sure hope you are right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read the link you gave. While the man is a good writer, though I don't like reading statements such as this, that don't have references cited in there (that's what scientists are used to) . He has quite a few factual errors that are grossly in contradiction to IPCC model predictions. If he substantiated his statements with sources, I would lend them more credit.
The big red flag was for me was this, "I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind." This is why we leave the biological affects of climate change to biologists and not to Physicists. The threat of "only a couple degrees" warming at the current rate, will have drastic effects on many of the worlds species. Again, its not the temp increase itself, but the rate of temp increase. The rate makes it impossible for most organisms (comes down to generation time) to adapt effectively.
You choose not to discuss anymore because your "vagaries" you've been spouting have been shown to be false. Not because you are taking the high road. I don't care if you discuss here any longer, but as I said before, please read some actual science, take the time to understand it, and then make the decision for yourself. Don't let the media make the decision for you. Because as I said, they often get whole concepts wrong.
Okay, even in the event that this is all a hoax, the climate isn't changing, we aren't on a limited supply of oil (I know we've still got quite a bit, but still...), It still cannot possibly hurt to try and help the environment. It cannot possibly hurt to try and conserve our resources. It cannot possibly hurt to switch to fuel and energy sources that do not create a haze of carbon dioxide over our cities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if all the data is wrong, we should still think in favor of protecting the environment from harm. I don't know about the rest of you, but I kind of like the air I breath to not be filled with smog
I believe your article to be grossly irresponsble to keep speculating on global climate change. Your information is malicously inconclusive and is used solely for outside political opportunism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep submitting to the readership all these supportive environmentalist claims but provide no rebuttal articles from the majority held world climatologist, someone like Dr. Tim Ball.
How about some balanced journalism, and truthful debate.
Ever notice how the political / religious (ie, NOT scientific) argumentative types always end up taking logical debate personally? This is not the schoolyard, guys. We are not trying to tear anyone down, however, I can understand it would feel like that to somebody that makes unfounded claims without a grain of evidence and actually expects that to hold up to cold hard facts. We simply want the truth and we want it to be accepted by the people. Period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo global warming enthusiasts know they're idiots? Like omg a hugh truck went by when I had an ice cream in my hand and it melted, darn Global warming Or Omg it's hot out here this fine sunny day it's making my ice cream melt, darn sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read Shosin's link as well and though impressed by the fluidity and conciseness of the comments and not incidentally the credentials of the scientist from Princeton, I found some of the historical references entertaining but bizarre and frankly misinformation for easy public consumption. We are supposed to be flabbergasted at Happer's easy rendevous with historical allegory including misguided Prohibition era initiatives and Aztec mass human sacrifices to appease the climate gods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not so easily bamboozled. Nothing like the sense of false familiarity to engender veracity in discourse. I would like to see the hard science behind the statement he so flippantly throws out that increased CO2 past a certain point in the troposphere does not increase infrared absorption proportionally. If you read the article you will see that he readily admits increased CO2 causes global warming and that this is not a necessarily a bad thing. This is a common subterfuge where the opposition argument subsumes the position of the counterpoint and then appears to bring the discussion to a higher, more enlightened intellectual plane. It is similar to the intelligent design crowd who now have god intimately involved with the miniscule details of evolution. Ask yourself, what is it exactly that Happer contributes to the discussion ? He states yes the physics shows there will be global warming, oh I am not a climatologist, but my gut feeling based on a cursory survey of historical socialogical parallells gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that, hey what's there not to like about AGW ? This is why, as I have stated previously in this blog, that scientists should stick to their particular circumscribed discipline and stay away from politics. Just the facts sir.
And by the way, don't you think there is damn good money to be made posing as a so called "expert" for the contrarian AGW position ? After all we all have to make money under this capitalistic society and scientists are not immune from the allure of EZ money.
Angela123
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the helpful comment.
Now do you have anything else to add?
Could you explain to us how changing the worlds economy from production based to knowledge based has the potential to reduce resource and energy usage and waste, increasing overall productivity and prosperity exponentially while also creating greater personal freedom and independence?
Could you give us some examples of why changing demographics due to the resettlement of greatly increased populations of displaced people will make the world both more and less stable?
Could you explain more completely why perceptions of climate change can be misleading. That seems to be your area of expertise. There is another side you didn't fully cover. How does the need for solid anecdotal evidence prevent people from accepting change, and how dangerous is that in a situation where the signatures of change are likely to be clear only after it is too late or too expensive to take the most effective steps against the dangers.
No doubt about it. I personally think we have gone way beyond the point of no return either!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRT
www.Privacy-Center.net
I want to catch two more things that I think were worth comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo call somebody like me an enthusiast is probably meaningful. I have been a Science Fiction fan more than 20 years and that does dispose me to react to Climate Change differently. The type of person who would put down a book they otherwise enjoyed because they suddenly realized it was based on a deep science fiction foundation is probably more likely to scoff at Global Warming. Some people just won't follow that type of storyline. Characters that make important decisions based on science just don't seem real to some people. They might identify with the characters otherwise and even like them and the general story, but they lose the thread and lose interest. Nothing is more discouraging than something that you liked that ends up turning you off. I would be interested to see a poll of that looks at the correspondence between peoples like or dislike for SciFi, and people how much importance they attach to Climate Change.
DO NOT call me an enthusiast in the sense that I might be hoping that climate change happens. I helped my father cull 150 year old trees killed by insect blooms from his woodlot and I felt sick. I can't say for certain that warming was related to that insect bloom, but there are many more infestations also affecting the forest recently. Warming is a possible explanation.
And regarding the way Prohibition was linked to Climate Change, I think that had merit. There needs to be a very careful look taken at any suggestions of punitive measures or restrictive legislation. They probably won't work. They will create illegal economies. They can be unfair and unjustified in the extreme. They often attempt to lay blame and punishment against guiltless crimes - committed without any intent to harm or malice. (This finger pointing is most often done unconsciously to some degree and without admission for the remainder.) People most often do bad things because they didn't know or realize they were going to turn out badly.
There were different degrees of culpability because there always are, but naming enemies is just stupid. That is no way to build consensus and create the common alliance that is needed. There is no real need to assign blame. There is a need to create solutions. Create the solutions, let them do their work and waste zero time on attacking ANYONE. If you want casualties, blood for blood, then surprisingly the way to look is to market forces. Those who don't become part of the solution will be overwhelmed.
Belief in God
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuslims believe in one, unique, incomparable God, Who has no son nor partner, and that none has the right to be worshipped but Him alone. He is the true God, and every other deity is false. He has the most magnificent names and sublime perfect attributes. No one shares His divinity, nor His attributes. In the Qur'an, God describes Himself (interpretation of the meaning): "Say, 'He is God, the One. God, to Whom the creatures turn for their needs. He begets not, nor was He begotten, and there is none like Him'" [112:1-4]. No one has the right to be invoked, supplicated, prayed to, or shown any act of worship, but God alone. God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, the Sovereign, and the Sustainer of everything in the whole universe. He manages all affairs. He stands in need of none of His creatures, and all His creatures depend on Him for all that they need. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, and the All-Knowing. In a perfect manner, His knowledge encompasses all things, the open and the secret, and the public and the private. He knows what has happened, what will happen, and how it will happen. No affair occurs in the whole world except by His will. Whatever He wills is, and whatever He does not will is not and will never be. His will is above the will of all the creatures. He has power over all things, and He is able to do everything. He is the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, and the Most Beneficent.
In one of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), we are told that God is more merciful to His creatures than a mother to her child. [Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #2754, and Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree, #5999] God is far removed from injustice and tyranny. He is All-Wise in all of His actions and decrees. If someone wants something from God, he or she can ask God directly without asking anyone else to intercede with God for him or her. God is not Jesus, and Jesus is not God. [It was reported by the Associated Press, London, on June 25, 1984, that a majority of the Anglican bishops surveyed by a television program said, “Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God.” The poll was of 31 of England’s 39 bishops. The report further stated that 19 of the 31 bishops said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as “God’s supreme agent.” The poll was conducted by London Weekend Television’s weekly religious program, “Credo.”]
Even Jesus himself rejected this. God has said in the Qur'an (interpretation of the meaning): "Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said, 'God is the Messiah (Jesus)..
God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sure God has an Opinion on Climate Change and it is probably along the lines of "Be strong in faith, and know your efforts are never in vain. This world that I gave to you is a treasure more precious than gold, and your care for it and to even the least of its creatures pleases me."
Of course you can have your own talk with God and maybe he tells you something different. If he tells you this is the doom times with wars, famines, death etc. Make sure you ask if that is really right now because my understanding would be this isn't that. That comes much later and only after we have many increasingly severe scares like this. There will be no wondering. You will know.
Now can we please try to add something directly helpful to the conversation?
I'll start if you want.
Hybrid transit buses. Quieter and more comfortable, to help encourage more people to ride and make the urban world more livable. Less polluting and I expect there would be better energy efficiency since all those stops and starts can use regenerative braking.
I particularly see them as having two smaller engine power packs which doubles engine unit production of a less expensive system. This allows scalable turn on of engines for better matching of power to requirements. Most of the time it will only need to run one engine or none when it is running on pure electric. The two engines increase reliability because the bus can shut down one engine and finish the run on electric and the remaining engine. I think it should be modular as well which is easier with the diesel electric system. You can probably make it able to pull out an engine generator and put another one in in less than 20 minutes. That turnaround time saves money. It also means that the whole bus isn't off the road just to service an engine. The electric systems in the rest of the bus would have to be serviced very rarely if properly designed and built.
And for one futuristic element, even if just barely, Use Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries. You can look them up.
There is likely to be an increasing push for more transit buses in every city around the world and another push to replace older buses that are less inviting to riders and often heavy polluters. Say a few hundred cities and towns around the world, each buying 10 to 100 new buses. 30000 high value buses with a long life of parts support ahead of them. I thought the auto industry was looking for a future? Maybe this would be something they could help with. It might even justify all that bailout money, and help put people back to work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no idea what these people are talking about. They are not following the news( untrustworthy is they are ) , there has been a decline in ocean temps about 1.2 c from the start piont 8 years ago. Scientists do not know why, and they can not explain the decrease. Thought- at the highest temp on Earth Mars recorded a higher temp than norm. Tell me driving your SUV on Earth made Mars warmer? The suns output can vary, sun spots are gone, get ready for some cold winters. Most Alaskan glaciers did not lose their snow cover from 07-08 winter and the first sticking snow fell around Sept. 15 . There was a Swedish study on Greenlands glaciers that most are growing and are not in danger of melting out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlaska just went through one of the coldest winters in years- the glaciers did not lose the snow from 07-08 winter. The Earth's temps has droped 1.2 c from the highs of 8 years ago. The scientists can't explane the drop.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarths high temps coincid with Mars recent highs- so driving your SUV on Earth caused Mars to warm ( what, out of simpathy ). The suns output can vary. Sun spots are an indicater, the more spots, the more output. Now, the spots are almost all gone. In 1983 there were dozens of papers on the new ice age. Yes, it was caused by man. Most of us are not falling for carbon credit salesmen who are counting on tainted data to validate their quest for profit and power.
Look at the Graphic that accompanied the article. See that last column? The one labeled large scale discontinuities is the one I am referring to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is very bad news. Those are things that multiply the problems. They are not as far away as previously thought according to their studies. The other columns indicate we are likely to have serious problems even before we get there and those problems are likely to be unavoidable but being able to delay the risks of large scale discontinuities is more worthwhile than winning World War II, sending a Man to the Moon, half of the discoveries of Modern medicine including Insulin, Antibiotics, Vaccinations, Blood transfusions, tissue grafts and organ transplants. Worth more than the entire technological revolution including the computers and the internet, and all the cars trains and planes ever built.
It is worth all of that and all we probably need is to make constant small improvements every year that will more often than not pay off in terms of economic gains.
I know this article is now a week old but the subject matter is still just as important.
luciferpriestgmk : Stop preaching religion in a science publication. If you want to tell us something about any god or demon first prove he/she/it exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and religion are and have always been incompatible with each other.
Preach to your fellow religious brethren and ask them to start controlling the size of their families. Overpopulation is the principle cause of rapid global heating.
Fishman, please read this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep in mind that increased variability is a likely art of the climate change.
If we get a very cold year and and you point out that the temperature has dropped that is not indicating that the cliamte is not warming. With increased variability we will never know if the year is going to be +3 degrees, or -2 degrees. That is painful for businesses like farming.
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990216014
And Scientific Earthling. I don't see what you are helping by going against religion, and you are quite wrong to say that science and religion can't coexist. The manner of belief is possibly different. I can believe in God and evolution for example, even though that seems contradictory to others.
I was only distressed that the content relative to Climate change was a bit low, but then so was your posts.
"....you are quite wrong to say that science and religion can't coexist. The manner of belief is possibly different. I can believe in God and evolution for example, even though that seems contradictory to others."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think he means that science and religion deal with completely different subject matters and do not overlap. Science confines itself to the study of natural phenomenon while religion deals with the supernatural.
Furthermore, science is a method not a belief system. It allows us to draw conclusions based off the results of an experiment which is very different from religion which is purely philosophical.
Here’s the thing, the debate on AGW is over, just as the Al Gore and our new president say. Problem is, the alarmists lose. The heavy thumb of Mother Nature has weighed the scale in favor of the wicked conservative deniers. The world has been inconveniently cooling for the better part of a decade and will likely continue to cool for another twenty or so years. Don’t take my word for it, wait and see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that the general public has lost the warming faith as have the politicians. Democrats, Jim Hanson, Al Gore, the lot of them, despite their speech, don’t really believe any more.
Here’s the proof: first, the rush to quickly get our taxes raised with a carbon cap and trade system while there is still some alarm left in the true believers, and second, the rush to kill nuclear power.
The president has endorsed Harry Reid’s plan for abandoning the nuclear waste storage site in Nevada and thus end the chance of a real replacement for fossil fuels such as the hated coal. Now tell me, if the world was going to end shortly from excess CO2 as per Jim Hansen and Al Gore, would not these alarmists be in favor of a real energy solution that’s good enough for France?
Do you believe that the wicked conservative deniers actually want to pollute the air and water with combustion products of fossil fuels? Of course not. They only want energy for their businesses and autos and homes. Solar and wind and geothermal energy are all fine, but they are not the serious sources of energy the civilized world needs. Perhaps if the nervous greens would get out of the way and allow nuclear energy to be more widely used we could all live in peace with sufficient energy and a bit less CO2.
Due to his unrelenting alarmism, David Biello's name is already on the list of phony political hacks pushing the anti-science agenda of global warming. As they come out of their wrappers, let us not forget the names of those who disgraced science to garner political favor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Biello-Bravo!!! You see climate changing now and is going to start escalating at a faster pace from this point forward! Their are lots of computer model aplications that show its now and its speeding up at an unimaginable pace! Of course they wont accept the fact that the world is going to dying, thus they retest again and again with the same results. On a different note- scientific earthling it is wonderful to live in a nation with freedom of religion or no religion as you. Everyone has the right to beleave what they wish, i agree, but please dont put my father GOD down. i dont put you down you dont put me down. I was told of folks like yourself. How funny.....you are part of the signs that the change is comming, sooner than you think! The wold is going to change drastically! Those that survive will prevail in a changed world unlike how we live today. Ask me no questions i tell you no lies! oh by the way sientific earthling, at the end if you ask jesus to forgive you he will!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisahh alas, what price to pay to save a planet......humanity....... oh and by the way its not Global Warming anymore, it is now Climate Change! we are not realy sure which way its going to go,only that its already begun and its progressing rapidly! Proof...hmmm try diffenbaugh, keoto, ipcc, epagov, those little nations and islands relocating citizens due to sea rise........ also try edis rsoe for daily updates to climate change! The end of the world is not here, the begining of major climate change to the world is! we shall prevail!(those left)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes CHina have to take some responsibity to clean the enviornment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, China has to take its responsibility to clean the enviornment that it has poluted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi people
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt that the worlds weather has gone a bit haywire over the last 13 years or so . This has nothing to do with co2 or global warming. I'm afraid it is to do with the return of the the primary deity. I belive he is called christ in america, a name he doesnt perticulary like because of its conatations.
This primary deity, is you will be happy to know is a scientist. He can scientificaly proove his identity and is more than willing to be put to the test (scientific). He brings with him a science that makes you lot survive death. His work causes a revision of nearly all accepted scientific dogma. He deals not in words but in simple elementry mathmatics, that cause revision of all understanding.
Scienec is not a pick and choose subject, mathmatical proofes are just that. His work is suppressed by a scientific establishment with covert political aims . But no power on earth can resist the truth.
This primary deity wants the Kingdom promised to him (lords prayer) unfortuantly your political masters dont want to give it to him, so we have fake science politicaly inspired to fight one man and keep you lot as slaves to your wage.
The primary deitys job is to exist in a state of constant waking meditation and that produces perfect weather worldwide. At the moment the deity is very very angry and as a result the weather of the world is disrupted. All that has to happen for perfect weather world wide is that the deity is understood and accomadated into the new scientific reality. No one can stop this its just how much you have to suffer before your leaders realise the bible is a book of truth regarding the return of the christ and not an election prop. The deity preferes a scientific understanding of existance to any religious understanding. He is to shut the bible for all time, just as it is said on the last page of the good book. The bible is to be viewed as a historical document and viewed in a new light. The light of scientific truth.
This year is predicted to be americas worst hurrican season ever. America is being willfully punished by the deity. This awfull destruction can be prevented by simpley accomadating one man. But your leaders love war so much they cant face the man......so we all suffer.
Denier wrote, "Do you believe that the wicked conservative deniers actually want to pollute the air and water with combustion products of fossil fuels?:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously?!?! You're going to give the benefit of the doubt to multi-billion dollar corporations who have invested interested to keep us dependent upon fossil fuels as long as possible?
You also wrote, "The world has been inconveniently cooling for the better part of a decade and will likely continue to cool for another twenty or so years. Don’t take my word for it, wait and see."
Care to show me what evidence you have that points to this? Cause the science sure doesn't. Here read this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
And to "wait and see," is exactly what we can't do. All the while not changing our carbon emissions and further exacerbating the process.
I don't have problems if someone doesn't know the truth about global warming and wants to find it out for themselves by reading the relevant science. What I do have a problem with is people like you slowing down the progress of a debate spouting nonsense without any scientific studies to back up your claims. Come back when you have something intelligent to contribute.
"AntonioSosa" -- dah! I propose that if President Obama is a Communist, then you are a Fascist. Stop babbling politics. "DLWELD" is of course quite right, it must be the most successful conspiracy since FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed without warning. Or the one about the USA bombing its own towers ... for the same reason. If you wish to ignore scientific facts, stop reading this website. And leave your politics under your bed with the bogeyman, thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncidentally, I forgot to state that Global Warming will be noticed first and to a great extent in the Polar regions. Here at 57 deg. North, our spring comes almost a month earlier -- and our winters are warmer -- is that cooling? Where do these people find their fuzzy facts, in cereal boxes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the old days people said you could talk about the weather, but could not change it. Now smart scientists say that we can and are changing the weather. Maybe so, maybe not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the point I was trying to make was that if the greens had not blocked nuclear power for the last 30 years, we would have a lot less CO2 because we would need fewer coal plants and also have lots of clean power for more electric cars. And if the politicians really believed that the world was ending as per Jim Hanson and Al Gore, they would be pressing for the effective replacement for coal, nuclear power.
I personally think that the weather (climate) would be what it is either way.
You are quite right about the illogical aversion to nuclear power. Instead, more and more coal plants are providing power. One big coal-powered plant goes online in China every week!!!!! THAT is not going to reduce CO2 emissions. I also agree that there is no "solid" proof that CO2 is the culprit, but cores taken from the Greenland ice sheet would seem to strongly indicate that this is one cause. In any case, Global Warming won't be stopped, because that which affects everyone can only be controlled if everyone agrees -- and they never will. Don't buy any real estate in Florida or Holland! I am at an elevation of over 600 feet (57 deg. North), so my feet will be dry. And lovely warm spring is on its way already -- weeks ahead of schedule.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs always it's always up to the next guy to do something about it. Where does the buck stop?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that a sentence like this: "I am a scientist and a religious person" -- is an oxymoron of the worst sort. Such a person obviously suffers from brain-washed "double-think". As for "Globe Warming" -- to be or not to be -- it already IS. And it is already too late to do anything about it. Too bad, but not for me. Luckily, I live at 57 deg. North on a high plateau.... the warmer climate does us good. And the rising ocean is no threat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVaclav Klaus??? You mean the "center-right" Czech President who is "known as the Margaret Thatcher of Central Europe"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean this guy?? "In April 2011, Klaus was seen taking a pen during a state visit to Chile.[53] The alleged theft, caught on television cameras, was widely reported around the world and has been dubbed an "international event" causing a "diplomatic stir". ??
The guy who "criticised NATO bombings of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis."???
The guy whose "...defining issue as economist since 1990 has been his enthusiasm for the free market economy as exemplified by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman."????
Nice role model. LOL