Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[a_majoor]

Hilarious one from Instapundit

http://www.instapundit.com/

THE PLANET IS SAFE: The Eco-Socialites are on the case. But not too much:

    Still, she has no plans to reduce the family’s significant carbon footprint by, say, selling the Manhattan second home. “I’m not a perfect person,” she said. “I’m not the greenest woman in America.” And there was scant indication that other guests, most of whom, presumably, knew their way up the steps of a private jet, were contemplating major lifestyle cutbacks. Glancing about the room, Ms. Barnett said, “We aren’t all going to move to one-bedroom apartments.” . . . She plans to practice conservation, to a point. Energy-saving light bulbs are fine — for the utility closet, perhaps. In other rooms, “they don’t give a very pretty light,” she said.

That's for the little people.

Link to full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/fashion/22SOCIALITES.html?ex=1334894400&en=36bc2af0db945483&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

 

[FrenchAffair]

Drastic steps need to be taken to bring Canada to the forefront of countering global warming. But we can’t not do that at the price of the Canadian economy.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

To French Affair,

So you're going to push Canada into leading the way in reducing solar activity then?


Matthew.    ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Drastic steps need to be taken to bring Canada to the forefront of countering global warming.

OK - I feel like stirring it up again. >

I will stipulate that mankind has an impact on the environment.
Will you stipulate that there are other drivers affecting the environment generally and global warming in particular?

I will even stipulate that the earth is warming (although I am not convinced of intensity or duration).
Will you stipulate that some portion of global warming is caused by external agents many of which are poorly defined but which general fall under the header of "natural"?

Will you accept that some portion, perhaps not the majority portion although I think it is, of global warming is a result of natural forces?

Because if you do, and if you want to "counter" global warming then you must necessarily act against those natural forces, act against nature and impose man's dominion over natural events.

If we accept that nature is not static then we must accept to achieve stasis then man needs to act against nature.

You might like a house built on a sandbar by the sea, and be inclined to invest half-a-million to get it, but nature tends to move those sandbars around.  If you want to keep the value of your investment then you need to be prepared to constantly spend money, material and energy in order to maintain the value, in fact the existence of your property.  The same situation applies to all our cities.

Personally, I am all in favour of high density housing in geologically unsound environments.  It seems to me to present a glorious opportunity to improve the gene pool.

Farmers, Ranchers and Nomads shall inherit the Earth.!!!! ;D

 

[FrenchAffair]

Will you stipulate that there are other drivers affecting the environment generally and global warming in particular?

Of course, but no such factors are large enough to cause the drastic and prolonged increase that we are currently experiencing. The only factor that is capable of this is humans and our ecological impact.

Because if you do, and if you want to "counter" global warming then you must necessarily act against those natural forces, act against nature and impose man's dominion over natural events.

The only effect that we have to counter is the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, which is caused by our consumption and use of fuels.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

To FrenchAffair,

Since you ignored my first post, I'll direct you to the following study which compares surface to troposphere temperatures.  The key behind the greenhouse gas model is that it is an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the troposphere which acts as an insulator and 'warms' the planet.  Specifically, if greenhouse gases are causing global warming, the insulation effect would have the troposphere (insulation layer) warming at a higher rate than the surface.

The problem is that the data shows the exact opposite.  That is, the surface is warming a greater rate than the troposphere.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/216.pdf

I'll await your analysis....


Matthew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Frenchaffair: After you have read Matt's reference perhaps you could consider this.  Note the references to St. Albert and his investments.

From Yesterday's National Post - An Interview by Linda Frum of MIT Atmospheric Physicist Richard Lindzen....apparently he doesn't feel the Science is settled. 

"Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger.

Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?

A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.

Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?

A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.

Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?

A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.

Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?

A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.

Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?

A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.

If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.

Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?

A Well, he's dead.

Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.

A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.

Q How cynical do you think Gore is?

A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.

Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.

A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.

Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?
A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ebd65ed3-80c2-441b-98ca-c4fbc7233e96&p=3

 

[FrenchAffair]

You do realize that the accredited scientific societies that reject the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports combined equates to less than 1% of the world scientific community?

There are “scientists” that will always have opposing opinions on issues. Hell there are “scientists” that still deny evolution, but when you have such concrete scientific evidence of global warming that upwards of 90% of the world scientific bodies agree on the findings on the IPCC I fail to see how you can continue to deny it.

They state that “The probability that this [Global Warming] is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.”

You might benefit from reading their reports, as they are the authoritative scientific body on the issue of climate change

http://www.ipcc.ch/


And Richard Lindzen is the same scientist who denied that 2nd hand smoke was harmful, it seem he just likes to be vocally critical about widely accepted ideas to get attention.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kirkhill,

You do know that you aren't going to change FrenchAffair's mind, right?  I mean- he is 20 and knows everything with only the certainty that youth can muster.

Of course, but no such factors are large enough to cause the drastic and prolonged increase that we are currently experiencing. The only factor that is capable of this is humans and our ecological impact.

FrenchAffair-

So humans are also responsible for the warming being experienced on Mars?  How did we manage that, precisely?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I don't expect you to change your mind on "global warming", but would you at least consider the possibilities that:

a. The climate on Earth is variable.  Always has been, always will be.

b. There is alot of money to be made and political power to be gained by successfully scaring the bejesus out of most of the Western World.

c. No one (and I mean NO ONE) really understands exactly how the climate system works on this planet.

Should we be conservative with a climate system we don't fully understand?  Sure- that is prudent.  Should we beggar every Canadian by unilaterally accepting a Kyoto target that was based soley on the hubris of a former Prime Minister and not science?  Well- you be the judge... 

edit-removed extra word

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

You do realize that the accredited scientific societies that reject the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports combined equates to less than 1% of the world scientific community?

There are “scientists” that will always have opposing opinions on issues. Hell there are “scientists” that still deny evolution, but when you have such concrete scientific evidence of global warming that upwards of 90% of the world scientific bodies agree on the findings on the IPCC I fail to see how you can continue to deny it.

They state that “The probability that this [Global Warming] is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.”

You might benefit from reading their reports, as they are the authoritative scientific body on the issue of climate change

http://www.ipcc.ch/


And Richard Lindzen is the same scientist who denied that 2nd hand smoke was harmful, it seem he just likes to be vocally critical about widely accepted ideas to get attention.

I have read their reports....and many more.

I've now given you two opportunities to counter my arguments in both cases, you've done the typical end-around.

Either step up, read it, and refute it using scientific method, or go find another sandbox.


Matthew. 

 

[Flip]

Speaking of scientific method........

I use this to explain my position to family and friends-then they look at me funny.

Go to your aquarium and turn the heater off.
If you have one of those CO2 test kits you will note the CO2 level will drop.
Now crank the heater way up and a day or so later the CO2 will pop up
as if by some man-made phenomenon.

That's right - CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, at least in my aquarium.
If you scale the thing up to the size of a tide pool or small lake - It still works.
If you do the same in a terrerrium, it still works.

Right, now try to prove that changing the atmospheric concentration
from 320ppm to 390ppm makes any difference at all.
I don't know how to do that.
Neither does anyone else.

BTW - It's been wayyy higher than that before.

The debate's over Mr Suzuki? ( reference to ageing hippie and GENETICIST )

Hmmm.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill,

You do know that you aren't going to change FrenchAffair's mind, right?  I mean- he is 20 and knows everything with only the certainty that youth can muster.

Roger that SKT.  I had one of many momentary lapses in judgement in engaging him.  On the other hand perhaps somebody else will gain something from the Lindzen-Frum interview.

Cheers.

 

[FrenchAffair]

So humans are also responsible for the warming being experienced on Mars?  How did we manage that, precisely?

The studies do not say that 100% of the increase in tempter is manmade. The earth goes though cycles of warming and cooling due to natural causes. We all know and accept this. How ever the rate and amount of increase on earth is far in excess of any natural causes. The slight increase in temperature on mars is only equlivent to a small portion of that on earth. 

Should we beggar every Canadian by unilaterally accepting a Kyoto target that was based soley on the hubris of a former Prime Minister and not science?

Nope, but we should do something drastic to curtail our contribution of greenhouse gases.

I've now given you two opportunities to counter my arguments in both cases, you've done the typical end-around.

What are Your arguments? Are you an accredited scientist? Did you issue a report based on scientific data?

You’re arguments are countered by the ICPP report and the basically unilateral acceptance of it’s findings by the scientific community. 

This is the internet, I’m sure I could copy/past some “report” from some “scientists” proving that evolution is a myth or the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn’t mean it refutes accepted science (which Global Warming is).

Speaking of scientific method........

I use this to explain my position to family and friends-then they look at me funny.

Go to your aquarium and turn the heater off.
If you have one of those CO2 test kits you will note the CO2 level will drop.
Now crank the heater way up and a day or so later the CO2 will pop up
as if by some man-made phenomenon.

That's right - CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, at least in my aquarium.
If you scale the thing up to the size of a tide pool or small lake - It still works.
If you do the same in a terrerrium, it still works.

Right, now try to prove that changing the atmospheric concentration
from 320ppm to 390ppm makes any difference at all.
I don't know how to do that.
Neither does anyone else.

There we have it, 20 years of Scientific research by people who commit their entire life to it, hundreds of years of data, thousands of scientific minds….. all debunked by Flip playing around with his fish tank heater.

You do know that you aren't going to change FrenchAffair's mind, right?  I mean- he is 20 and knows everything with only the certainty that youth can muster.

So denying proven science is a milestone only come by with age?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

'ho boy.

FrenchAffair- I responded to your post, where you said this:

Of course, but no such factors are large enough to cause the drastic and prolonged increase that we are currently experiencing. The only factor that is capable of this is humans and our ecological impact.

The Only factor?  Ever?  In the 4.5 Billion year history of the planet?  You know this how?  You read it somewhere or someone told you?

Little anecdote time-

When I was in grade 4 or 5 (in the mid 70s), no less an authority than the Government of Canada distributed every school kid in the country a comic book about how not to waste energy.  It was actually a pretty good production, but the uncategorical government line of the day, based on the best scientific advice available was that, the planet would be out of oil (and I mean every last drop) by the year 2000.  It is now 2007.  See any problems with that line?  See the problem with uncritically accepting scientific evidence about anything?  Google the ether-based theory of light if you don't believe me on how the scientific consensus can sometimes be wrong.

Also I fly for a living, which means that, while I am not a metorologist or climatologist, I know more than the average bear about weather and the climate. I therefore know that most of the examples of what the media pounces on as "proof" of a warming climate (storms, heat, snow in June- you name it) is all within the range of what is possible for the Earth's climate.  Our decent weather records for most of the world only go back to WW2.  Much of the ocean still is not instrumented.  I will stipulate that we don't really have a good idea of is "normal" for Earth.  I personnally don't think that there is a stasis point for the Earth's Climate. I think we just swing from Ice Age to warm period and back again- but I cannot prove it.

What is bothering me about your posting style, FrenchAffair, is your absolute, arrogant, certainty about everything.  You could at least allow that the jury is out on somethings and that you don't know everything.  You might be surprised at what you learn.

 

[GAP]

10 to 15 years ago a lot of these same scientists were just as certain we were entering an Ice Age. Ooops....uh, gee, maybe not....

Ice cores from glaciers have definitly proven that the earth's climate does exactly what SeaKing Tacco commented on. The earth's climate swings from one extreme to another, largely due to the inclination of the earth changing.

We haven't got to that, but all that wonderful oil up by the Bering Sea, et al was created from lush, rich jungles and heavy plant life...wonder where that came from....maybe that the earth's inclination changed 90 degrees?

Read the "Life of Barney"....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Alright French Affair, your song & dance is getting old as I've been very clear with the argument and provided scientific breakdown of the dataset for you to review.

On more time, my argument is this:
1)  If GHG insulation was the primary factor in Global Warming then we'd see temperatures rising in the troposphere faster than at the surface.
2)  Because when we look at the data sets we surface temperatures rising faster than troposphere temperatures, then the GHG insulation model upon which Kyoto is based, is bad science.

The link for ease of access is:  http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/216.pdf

Since you're sceptical, I'd start on page 7 & 8 to review the references to first determine if you find them credible.  Once you're comfortable with the references, then read the findings.


Matthew. 

P.S.  The ICPP is not as popular as you believe.  The actual number of names on the report is not the 2,000 that some bandy about.  The names were counted and it's less than 550.  On the other hand those actively promoting the solar activity model continues to increase, primarily because the data sets show a direct cause (more solar activity) and effect (immediate rise in temperatures) as opposed to CO2 which Kyoto-ites promote as a cause, but the datasets show is a trailing indicator (oceans warm, a warm liquid can hold less gas than a cold liquid, and so the oceans release CO2 after the earth's temperature has risen), not to mention rising surface temperatures on other planets in which GHG's are obviously a non-issue.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Well I guess if someone is really committed to denying the sky is blue no one can change their mind. No different with this argument.

I feel kind of sorry for the people who continue to deny the massive human effect on our environment. Not only are you the people who will do nothing to combat our footprint on this earth and do what they can to ensure that we do not experience the drastic effects of global warming we will face if we continue this path, but I feel sorry most of all that you are the people will suffer the most. The vast majority of the western world is committed to changing our effect on the environment, and those of us who deny it exists and refuse to change their ways will be the ones who will be on the losing end of the social, political and economic changes. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sigh.

This is becoming really tiresome, especially your sanctimonious sulking because you were unable to "convert the heathens" on army.ca to your "church of the Holy Kyoto".

Look- the Earth may or may not be warming right now.  It may or may not be a trend.  I'm not convinced, based on what I have read, that extra CO2 in the atmosphere (at our current levels, anyway) is a causal factor of warming- it may be the result of something else- like solar loading.  If the Kyoto zealots turn out to right (it could happen), then I'm still not convinced that other factors like extra cloud cover caused by more water vapour in a warmer atmosphere and increased snowfall at high latitudes will not just balance things out anyway.  I just don't know.  Which is a hell of a lot more intellectually honest than I think you are being. 

Anyway- if you feel like living in a cave; burning nothing for heat and wearing nothing petroleum based- that's up to you.  I prefer to live in the real world.

I'm out...

 

[FrenchAffair]

As I began to tire of "debating" him in the Libertarian thread, I posted:

Nice little quote, how ever it seems rather hypocritical that you would post it in reference to me when though out the entire libertarian thread you and your libertarian cronies made no concessions, you claimed that the only solution to every issues is to let the “market force” deal with it and that there was no way your political philosophy was anything other than the savory of man kind.

I support a political system that has a history of success, you support one based in nothing more than idealistic philosophy. If anyone is guilty of presenting the false illusion of knowledge, it is that of the “libertarians”.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Sigh.

This is becoming really tiresome, especially your sanctimonious sulking because you were unable to "convert the heathens" on army.ca to your "church of the Holy Kyoto".

Look- the Earth may or may not be warming right now.  It may or may not be a trend.  I'm not convinced, based on what I have read, that extra CO2 in the atmosphere (at our current levels, anyway) is a causal factor of warming- it may be the result of something else- like solar loading.  If the Kyoto zealots turn out to right (it could happen), then I'm still not convinced that other factors like extra cloud cover caused by more water vapour in a warmer atmosphere and increased snowfall at high latitudes will not just balance things out anyway.  I just don't know.  Which is a hell of a lot more intellectually honest than I think you are being. 

Anyway- if you feel like living in a cave; burning nothing for heat and wearing nothing petroleum based- that's up to you.  I prefer to live in the real world.

I'm out...

I never said I supported Kyoto. I said we need to take drastic and rational steps, never said we need to sacrifice the Canadian economy in the process.

I just don't know.

Neither do I, like you I am not a scientists. I do not have the education or time to spend years upon years researching the issue. Thus I differ to the experts, and the over 2000 leading experts from over 100 nations accost this world agree that humans are most likely the main cause of this warming that will continue unless we do something to stop it.