Full Version: A New Poll on Global Warming
QUOTE
Global Temperature Change is the real issue, as we will have to adapt whether it gets a lot colder or warmer. We can't stop it. We can't eliminate a problem that we don't fully understand. What we do know is most likely some small percentage of what we need to know.
It is always nice to know more and to reduce uncertainty but why do you assume that continuing to throw natural systems even farther out of balance is the prudent course when many of the consequences of our activities are still unknown? Here are a couple of references to some new studies on the acidification of the oceans produced by increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is likely to have drastic impacts on ocean ecosystems that will produce a catasrophy entirely separate from "climate change." It may also contribute to more rapid warming by gradually reducing the amount of CO2 the oceans sequester each year.
Live Science Article
RealClimate Review
There are a number of other write-ups on this study including this weeks New Scientist if you have access to it.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jul 10 2005, 06:21 PM)
QUOTE
Global Temperature Change is the real issue, as we will have to adapt whether it gets a lot colder or warmer. We can't stop it. We can't eliminate a problem that we don't fully understand. What we do know is most likely some small percentage of what we need to know.
It is always nice to know more and to reduce uncertainty but why do you assume that continuing to throw natural systems even farther out of balance is the prudent course when many of the consequences of our activities are still unknown? Here are a couple of references to some new studies on the acidification of the oceans produced by increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is likely to have drastic impacts on ocean ecosystems that will produce a catasrophy entirely separate from "climate change." It may also contribute to more rapid warming by gradually reducing the amount of CO2 the oceans sequester each year.
How do you get "but why do you assume that continuing to throw natural systems even farther out of balance is the prudent course when many of the consequences of our activities are still unknown" out of what I said?
Adapting to what comes is a natural process, we have been doing it for thousands of years. If you can't change or control climate, we have no other choice but to adapt. Climates over the world have changed periodically before man arrived, thus without man's very small contribution to whatever the causes.
We don't even know what all the parts of the overall "balance" equation is, and don't fully understand many of the parts that we do know about.
We should continue to do what we can to understand, but not at the expense of being unprepared for the inevitable climate changes that will occur, as they have been occurring all along.
Welcome back Erasmussimo.
started? So humanity burned nothing prior to 1750? If you wish to make points about the relationship between CO2 release and temperature increase, a simple-minded black and white statement doesn't cut it. CO2 release and temperature increase aren't yes-or-no propositions; they are numeric variables. Make your point in those terms.
Was humanity burning things before 1850? Yes, humanity has been burning wood for thousands of years, however I would challenge you to prove that there was any dramatic increase in the year 1850. The simplest explanation is that the warming trend was a result of the end the little ice age.
Also, before you revive the argument that my rebound assertions are baseless, let me once again state that the atmosphere is an dynamic equilibrium. While temperatures may fluctuate in a glacial period, they nonetheless are always cold. Similarly, in a inter-glacial period they are always fairly hot. Thus, what goes down must go up, and what goes up must go down.
Re the coming ice age, or so I was informed, I was not claiming that the ice age would occur in my lifetime, or even relatively soon thereafter. I was simply pointing out how the reports were of an encroaching ice age [as it were] sans any mention of this thing called "global warming."
So your argument is that by making us worry about things getting to cold and to hot simultaneously, scientists are being inconsistent? Well your opposition is being misleading by claiming that Ice Age theory is/was only supported by a few scientists, because as far I know its well accepted proven theory.
but why do you assume that continuing to throw natural systems even farther out of balance is the prudent course when many of the consequences of our activities are still unknown
Its not unknown, because temperatures were significantly hotter then now during Roman times.
started? So humanity burned nothing prior to 1750? If you wish to make points about the relationship between CO2 release and temperature increase, a simple-minded black and white statement doesn't cut it. CO2 release and temperature increase aren't yes-or-no propositions; they are numeric variables. Make your point in those terms.
Was humanity burning things before 1850? Yes, humanity has been burning wood for thousands of years, however I would challenge you to prove that there was any dramatic increase in the year 1850. The simplest explanation is that the warming trend was a result of the end the little ice age.
Also, before you revive the argument that my rebound assertions are baseless, let me once again state that the atmosphere is an dynamic equilibrium. While temperatures may fluctuate in a glacial period, they nonetheless are always cold. Similarly, in a inter-glacial period they are always fairly hot. Thus, what goes down must go up, and what goes up must go down.
Re the coming ice age, or so I was informed, I was not claiming that the ice age would occur in my lifetime, or even relatively soon thereafter. I was simply pointing out how the reports were of an encroaching ice age [as it were] sans any mention of this thing called "global warming."
So your argument is that by making us worry about things getting to cold and to hot simultaneously, scientists are being inconsistent? Well your opposition is being misleading by claiming that Ice Age theory is/was only supported by a few scientists, because as far I know its well accepted proven theory.
but why do you assume that continuing to throw natural systems even farther out of balance is the prudent course when many of the consequences of our activities are still unknown
Its not unknown, because temperatures were significantly hotter then now during Roman times.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 04:11 PM)
Was humanity burning things before 1850? Yes, humanity has been burning wood for thousands of years, however I would challenge you to prove that there was any dramatic increase in the year 1850.
There wasn't. We're looking at a long-term phenomenon. This yes-or-no approach you insist on taking is too simple-minded to address the reality. The universe changes by degrees, tiny or large -- not "Yes, there's global warming!" versus "No, there isn't!"
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 04:11 PM)
The simplest explanation is that the warming trend was a result of the end the little ice age.
Simplicity is in the mind of the beholder. The simplest explanation of all would be "it just happened" -- which is not far distant from your explanation and doesn't explain anything.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 04:11 PM)
Thus, what goes down must go up, and what goes up must go down.
I shall leave it to candid observers to assess the scientific merits of your theorem. You may wish to communicate this startling result to NASA, so that they can prepare for the inevitable coming down of all those satellites.
There wasn't. We're looking at a long-term phenomenon. This yes-or-no approach you insist on taking is too simple-minded to address the reality. The universe changes by degrees, tiny or large -- not "Yes, there's global warming!" versus "No, there isn't!"
If you admit that the amount of CO2 being emitted in 1850 was not all that much more significant then it was in previous decades, then why did the warming start then instead of earlier? Also its wrong to term global warming as a phenomenon, because temperatures have changed as quickly as this before.
Simplicity is in the mind of the beholder. The simplest explanation of all would be "it just happened" -- which is not far distant from your explanation and doesn't explain anything.
That would be a statement of what happened rather then why. A reason must cite a cause.
shall leave it to candid observers to assess the scientific merits of your theorem. You may wish to communicate this startling result to NASA, so that they can prepare for the inevitable coming down of all those satellites.
Your analogy is invalid, because my statement only applied to dynamic equilibriums.
If you admit that the amount of CO2 being emitted in 1850 was not all that much more significant then it was in previous decades, then why did the warming start then instead of earlier? Also its wrong to term global warming as a phenomenon, because temperatures have changed as quickly as this before.
Simplicity is in the mind of the beholder. The simplest explanation of all would be "it just happened" -- which is not far distant from your explanation and doesn't explain anything.
That would be a statement of what happened rather then why. A reason must cite a cause.
shall leave it to candid observers to assess the scientific merits of your theorem. You may wish to communicate this startling result to NASA, so that they can prepare for the inevitable coming down of all those satellites.
Your analogy is invalid, because my statement only applied to dynamic equilibriums.
ALHP
Perhaps a couple of paragraphs of Spencer Weart's overview of the history of climate change science will clarify your understanding.
Here is the index to his whole Discovery of Global Warming website. Index
Bill55AZ
Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. You seemed to imply that we could do a few things like conserving fossil fuels and pursuing alternatives but that we didn't know enough to go beyond that. If these two things were vigorously pursued they would be an acceptable first step. I agree that we can't stop global warming because another .6 degree C forcing is already in the oceans and atmosphere. We do know enough, however, to take steps to avoid more extreme changes.
QUOTE
So your argument is that by making us worry about things getting to cold and to hot simultaneously, scientists are being inconsistent? Well your opposition is being misleading by claiming that Ice Age theory is/was only supported by a few scientists, because as far I know its well accepted proven theory.
Perhaps a couple of paragraphs of Spencer Weart's overview of the history of climate change science will clarify your understanding.
QUOTE
Over the next decade a few scientists devised simple mathematical models of the climate, and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly variable. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollens and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a few centuries. This finding was reinforced by computer models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, the fruit of a long effort to learn how to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. A 1967 calculation suggested that average temperatures might rise a few degrees within the next century. The next century seemed far off, however, and the calculations were plainly speculative. Groups of scientists that reviewed the issue saw no need for any policy actions, although they did draw official attention to the need for a greater research effort.
In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. The mass media (to the limited extent they covered the issue) were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes warning of the prospect of a catastrophic new ice age. Study panels, first in the U.S. and then elsewhere, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites
Overview of CC ScienceIn the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. The mass media (to the limited extent they covered the issue) were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes warning of the prospect of a catastrophic new ice age. Study panels, first in the U.S. and then elsewhere, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites
Here is the index to his whole Discovery of Global Warming website. Index
Bill55AZ
QUOTE
How do you get "but why do you assume that continuing to throw natural systems even farther out of balance is the prudent course when many of the consequences of our activities are still unknown" out of what I said?
Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. You seemed to imply that we could do a few things like conserving fossil fuels and pursuing alternatives but that we didn't know enough to go beyond that. If these two things were vigorously pursued they would be an acceptable first step. I agree that we can't stop global warming because another .6 degree C forcing is already in the oceans and atmosphere. We do know enough, however, to take steps to avoid more extreme changes.
The scientists currently studying climate will tell you that what we know, and what we can input as variables into computers, is very little compared to the many potential variables that we do not know about and therefore cannot put in to computers. This is especially difficult when studying underwater ocean currents that affect our climate. They also know that what we do know, if put into the most powerful computers and using the most accurate models, they will still not be able to predict our weather with any kind of dependable accuracy beyond a few weeks.
Predicting actual climate changes over the next few decades is even less likely.
And while some are predicting global warming, others are predicting global cooling.
With China, India, and other countries becoming more industrial and using coal, we may soon be able to better determine man's contribution to the problem.
Don't count on emerging nations to pay any attention to us when we ask them to burn less coal, trees, etc. Their priorities lie with more immediate concerns, and they can always say that they are only doing what we have already done, and now it is their turn to enjoy the prosperity of a modernized industrial economy.
So even if our scientists are correct, we still have to deal with international politics.
Perhaps I am a pessimist; adapting still seems to be what will have to be done.
Predicting actual climate changes over the next few decades is even less likely.
And while some are predicting global warming, others are predicting global cooling.
With China, India, and other countries becoming more industrial and using coal, we may soon be able to better determine man's contribution to the problem.
Don't count on emerging nations to pay any attention to us when we ask them to burn less coal, trees, etc. Their priorities lie with more immediate concerns, and they can always say that they are only doing what we have already done, and now it is their turn to enjoy the prosperity of a modernized industrial economy.
So even if our scientists are correct, we still have to deal with international politics.
Perhaps I am a pessimist; adapting still seems to be what will have to be done.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 05:07 PM)
If you admit that the amount of CO2 being emitted in 1850 was not all that much more significant then it was in previous decades, then why did the warming start then instead of earlier?
More black-and-white thinking. Think numerically, and your difficulty disappears.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 05:07 PM)
Also its wrong to term global warming as a phenomenon, because temperatures have changed as quickly as this before.
Very well, if global warming isn't a "phenomenon", then what is it -- a rutabaga?
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 05:07 PM)
Simplicity is in the mind of the beholder. The simplest explanation of all would be "it just happened" -- which is not far distant from your explanation and doesn't explain anything.
That would be a statement of what happened rather then why. A reason must cite a cause.
That would be a statement of what happened rather then why. A reason must cite a cause.
And claiming that the temperature bounced back like a rubber ball is an explanation?
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 10 2005, 05:07 PM)
shall leave it to candid observers to assess the scientific merits of your theorem. You may wish to communicate this startling result to NASA, so that they can prepare for the inevitable coming down of all those satellites.
Your analogy is invalid, because my statement only applied to dynamic equilibriums.
Your analogy is invalid, because my statement only applied to dynamic equilibriums.
I see. And orbital motion is NOT a dynamic equilibrium?
Bill55AZ
No, scientists studying climate won't say this. That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon. Most would say the earth is warming, that most of the warming is human induced, that more warming is buit into previous human activities, and that the world will warm drastically from future releases of GH gases within the next 100 years unless we take important steps to curtail their release.
And no, there is not disagreement among scientists about whether the earth is warming or cooling. Perhaps you are confusing the discussion about warming holding the potential to shut off the global conveyor circulation which might cool Europe and portions of North America. This possibility should not be confused with a general cooling. The average temperature of the earth would still continue to rise. If you disagree, please link me to a source.
QUOTE
The scientists currently studying climate will tell you that what we know, and what we can input as variables into computers, is very little compared to the many potential variables that we do not know about and therefore cannot put in to computers. This is especially difficult when studying underwater ocean currents that affect our climate. They also know that what we do know, if put into the most powerful computers and using the most accurate models, they will still not be able to predict our weather with any kind of dependable accuracy beyond a few weeks.
Predicting actual climate changes over the next few decades is even less likely.
And while some are predicting global warming, others are predicting global cooling.
Predicting actual climate changes over the next few decades is even less likely.
And while some are predicting global warming, others are predicting global cooling.
No, scientists studying climate won't say this. That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon. Most would say the earth is warming, that most of the warming is human induced, that more warming is buit into previous human activities, and that the world will warm drastically from future releases of GH gases within the next 100 years unless we take important steps to curtail their release.
And no, there is not disagreement among scientists about whether the earth is warming or cooling. Perhaps you are confusing the discussion about warming holding the potential to shut off the global conveyor circulation which might cool Europe and portions of North America. This possibility should not be confused with a general cooling. The average temperature of the earth would still continue to rise. If you disagree, please link me to a source.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050...rth_bright.html
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979
However, you can easily find links that insist that there is no confusion and that warming is the only thing in our future.
Fact is, there have been periods of warming and cooling with NO input from man.
TedN5 says
No, scientists studying climate won't say this. That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon. Most would say the earth is warming, that most of the warming is human induced, that more warming is buit into previous human activities, and that the world will warm drastically from future releases of GH gases within the next 100 years unless we take important steps to curtail their release.
What is being agreed upon is not being agreed upon by ALL scientists.
Read Planet Earth by Jonathan Weiner, chapter on The Climate Puzzle, the part about computers in particular around page 105. Granted, the book is about 20 years old, but the chapter gives a very good understanding of the many variables and complexities that make understanding weather a difficult puzzle indeed.
BTW, from the IPCC site.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979
However, you can easily find links that insist that there is no confusion and that warming is the only thing in our future.
Fact is, there have been periods of warming and cooling with NO input from man.
TedN5 says
No, scientists studying climate won't say this. That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon. Most would say the earth is warming, that most of the warming is human induced, that more warming is buit into previous human activities, and that the world will warm drastically from future releases of GH gases within the next 100 years unless we take important steps to curtail their release.
What is being agreed upon is not being agreed upon by ALL scientists.
Read Planet Earth by Jonathan Weiner, chapter on The Climate Puzzle, the part about computers in particular around page 105. Granted, the book is about 20 years old, but the chapter gives a very good understanding of the many variables and complexities that make understanding weather a difficult puzzle indeed.
BTW, from the IPCC site.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
My experience, and skepticism, is similar to KivrotHaTaavah's. As a child, in a British school during the 60's, many teachers told us that there was an approaching ice-age. They also told us that, by the year 2000, fossil fuels would be spent and that there would be no way to keep warm. I took this to mean that it would happen in my lifetime. They also said that food would probably be obsolete and we would be swallowing pills instead. I looked forward to that one (School dinners, mom's cooking and all). My parents shared the same thoughts (except for mom's cooking, although I believe that my dad secretly did) and so did the parents of my friends. I also remember, as a child, seeing this discussed on television. Where did this all start? I can only conclude that it must have originated from scientific theory. I don't know that for sure, but how else could it have? I'm sure that any scientist still living would not post his now disproved theory on the Internet.
I am an atheist and a great believer in science, but acknowledge that the consensus of opinion amongst the scientific community is sometimes wrong. Let's not revise history, this was really said by many to many more. I have no idea this was propagated this, but as an adult I see this kind of fear regurgitated by society again and again. Same fear, different form of impending doom. Terrorists are going to get you, a comet will hit the Earth, the African bees are coming, deadly virus on it's way etc., etc. Let's not even mention the "Rapture". The World is going to end!
Of course, it is possible that, one day, the world will end. It is possible that it may come from one of these popular theories.
The first few times that the boy cried "Wolf", I ran in fear. Now I scorn him. So I won't bother clicking any links posted on this thread. Of course, one day, I may get eaten by a wolf. If it's this wolf, then you can all come on here and mock me.
I am an atheist and a great believer in science, but acknowledge that the consensus of opinion amongst the scientific community is sometimes wrong. Let's not revise history, this was really said by many to many more. I have no idea this was propagated this, but as an adult I see this kind of fear regurgitated by society again and again. Same fear, different form of impending doom. Terrorists are going to get you, a comet will hit the Earth, the African bees are coming, deadly virus on it's way etc., etc. Let's not even mention the "Rapture". The World is going to end!
Of course, it is possible that, one day, the world will end. It is possible that it may come from one of these popular theories.
The first few times that the boy cried "Wolf", I ran in fear. Now I scorn him. So I won't bother clicking any links posted on this thread. Of course, one day, I may get eaten by a wolf. If it's this wolf, then you can all come on here and mock me.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jul 10 2005, 09:29 PM)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050...rth_bright.html
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979
However, you can easily find links that insist that there is no confusion and that warming is the only thing in our future.
Fact is, there have been periods of warming and cooling with NO input from man.
TedN5 says
No, scientists studying climate won't say this. That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon. Most would say the earth is warming, that most of the warming is human induced, that more warming is buit into previous human activities, and that the world will warm drastically from future releases of GH gases within the next 100 years unless we take important steps to curtail their release.
What is being agreed upon is not being agreed upon by ALL scientists.
Read Planet Earth by Jonathan Weiner, chapter on The Climate Puzzle, the part about computers in particular around page 105. Granted, the book is about 20 years old, but the chapter gives a very good understanding of the many variables and complexities that make understanding weather a difficult puzzle indeed.
BTW, from the IPCC site.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979
However, you can easily find links that insist that there is no confusion and that warming is the only thing in our future.
Fact is, there have been periods of warming and cooling with NO input from man.
TedN5 says
No, scientists studying climate won't say this. That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon. Most would say the earth is warming, that most of the warming is human induced, that more warming is buit into previous human activities, and that the world will warm drastically from future releases of GH gases within the next 100 years unless we take important steps to curtail their release.
What is being agreed upon is not being agreed upon by ALL scientists.
Read Planet Earth by Jonathan Weiner, chapter on The Climate Puzzle, the part about computers in particular around page 105. Granted, the book is about 20 years old, but the chapter gives a very good understanding of the many variables and complexities that make understanding weather a difficult puzzle indeed.
BTW, from the IPCC site.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
Last things first, I never claim the IPCC carried out research. Your description mathces my statement closely, to witt
QUOTE
That's what the IPCC process was all about, to periodically review the science and issue reviewed statements about what could be agreed upon.
Anything that is 20 years out of date is hopelessly obsolete both from the standpoint of view of climate science and from that of the capability of computers. There are numerous Atmospheric General Circulation Models, most of them linked with Ocean Circulation Models. They have been validated by inputing past climatic conditions and running them to predicting climatic conditions that existed in the future. They differ in their range of warming predictions but give consistent trends that are in close agreement.
Your first article contains the following statement,
QUOTE
'Spurious argument'
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.
That is refutation enough. However, I agree that there is uncertainty as to the sensitivity of temperature change to increases in GW gases and that this uncertainty iis primarily related to albedo and primarily to aerosols. This, however, should be small confort to critics because it is likely that aerosols have masked some warming and that warming could increase as aerosols like SO2, which are short lived in the atmosphere, fail to keep pace with increases in GW gases which are longer lived.
Your second article is mostly a general description of climate history that almost everyone would agree to, followed by a blanket characterization of climate change scrience that is totally devoid of any specifics. The author is not a real climate scientist at all but, in the words of the article,
QUOTE
G.W. Burrows is a retired analytical chemist and former director of toxicology and environmental chemistry laboratories. Burrows currently teaches chemistry, biology and environmental science.
I could find no other active reference to him when I Googled his name. His attempt to minimize the the role of CO2 in climate change is absurd on its face. The relationship of CO2 to climate has been understood for 100 years since first proposed by Arhenius in 1896. Can't you find something better? Perhaps something that has been peer reviewed or at least a press account of a peer reviewed articlre?
QUOTE(Confused @ Jul 10 2005, 10:44 PM)
I am an atheist and a great believer in science, but acknowledge that the consensus of opinion amongst the scientific community is sometimes wrong. Let's not revise history, this was really said by many to many more.
Confused, I'll ask you to provide some sort of evidence in support of your claim that the consensus of opinion among scientists a few decades ago was that the earth was heading into another ice age. I recall it quite differently. Yes, the press reported some stories like that -- the press has always screwed up the science. Moreover, the press goes only for the sensational. If nine scientists say "nothing interesting is going to happen" and the tenth says "we're all going to die!" you can bet that the press will ignore the first nine and cover the tenth. So don't blame the sins of the press on science.
More black-and-white thinking. Think numerically, and your difficulty disappears.
I fail to see how that answers my question.
Very well, if global warming isn't a "phenomenon", then what is it -- a rutabaga?
No global warming is not a plant, and the correct term would be natural occurence.
And claiming that the temperature bounced back like a rubber ball is an explanation?
I've explained the concept of dynamic equilibrium, and you have yet to refute it. Your above analogy reminds me of a theist ridiculing evolution.
I see. And orbital motion is NOT a dynamic equilibrium?
A stable orbit (to my knowledge) is an equilibrium, but not a dynamic one, because each orbit is virtually identical to each previous orbit. If this weren't true, then years would not all have the same length.
I fail to see how that answers my question.
Very well, if global warming isn't a "phenomenon", then what is it -- a rutabaga?
No global warming is not a plant, and the correct term would be natural occurence.
And claiming that the temperature bounced back like a rubber ball is an explanation?
I've explained the concept of dynamic equilibrium, and you have yet to refute it. Your above analogy reminds me of a theist ridiculing evolution.
I see. And orbital motion is NOT a dynamic equilibrium?
A stable orbit (to my knowledge) is an equilibrium, but not a dynamic one, because each orbit is virtually identical to each previous orbit. If this weren't true, then years would not all have the same length.
TedN5 says...
Anything that is 20 years out of date is hopelessly obsolete both from the standpoint of view of climate science and from that of the capability of computers. There are numerous Atmospheric General Circulation Models, most of them linked with Ocean Circulation Models. They have been validated by inputing past climatic conditions and running them to predicting climatic conditions that existed in the future. They differ in their range of warming predictions but give consistent trends that are in close agreement.
Can't you find something better? Perhaps something that has been peer reviewed or at least a press account of a peer reviewed articlre?
20 years is hopelessy out of date? I think not. That works in computers, but not climate. Man is changing his level of technology almost daily, and is using it to help study the issue at hand. But all we have done in 20 years is get perhaps a millimeter closer to the answer. Read the chapter I told you about. Each "cell" they used then in their studies was the size of the state of Kansas, IIRC. So much for computer models. They are rough drafts at best. And we can only guess at the many variables in ocean currents that affect our weather. They tend to change without respect to our scientists predictions. The recent rainfall anomaly in the northwest US is an example.
Peer review is what keeps the unconventional answers to problems from being considered. Everybody jumps on the bandwagon for the obvious, especially if they can get more government money to study it. The AMA has JAMA, and many times Doctors have had to prove their new ideas about treating diseases and ailments without the help of AMA. The IPCC acts just like AMA/JAMA with it's "peer review".
Just in case you are getting me wrong, I am in favor of studying the problem, and dealing with what we know we can do, like using less coal and/or adding scrubbers and bag houses to clean up some of the pollution. But, only as a stop gap until we replace them all with Nuclear Power Plants.
Of course, that only solves the problem of pollution from coal fired power plants. What do we do in China where they use coal for cooking and to heat their many poorly built homes, just like 200 years ago in Europe? The Chinese are not going to suddenly stop doing that, or insulate all their old homes, or mandate insulation in all new homes.
But back to CO2, and other Green House gases.
GH gases consist of water vapor (90%), CO2, oxides of Nitrogen, methane, and CFCs. The last 4 have had significant increases due to man, and CFCs are entierely man caused.
Methane is a bigger problem than CO2. It is increasing faster than CO2 and has about 20 times the heat holding power than CO2. CFCs are 20,000 times more effective than CO2 at holding heat, and that is the reason why there has been a big push to reduce them for a long time now. This info is from a 9 year old book, and I doubt the numbers have changed much in only 9 years. The same book says that there may even be a good side of more CO2, as in stimulating plant growth. Forests would grow in areas that are barren now. The only way to KNOW what will happen is to wait and see, but that could be the wrong thing.
There are no experts out there, just people in the process of becoming experts.
I see no reason to panic just because a bunch of financially and politically motivated scientists say we must. A part of my working career was spent in support of nuclear scientists, and I have heard them admit that they " need to find more aspects of nuclear power to study or we will lose our budget".
We already know many things to do that will make a huge dent in the problem, so why aren't we doing them? Why won't our politicians spend the money where it will have the most effect?
Anything that is 20 years out of date is hopelessly obsolete both from the standpoint of view of climate science and from that of the capability of computers. There are numerous Atmospheric General Circulation Models, most of them linked with Ocean Circulation Models. They have been validated by inputing past climatic conditions and running them to predicting climatic conditions that existed in the future. They differ in their range of warming predictions but give consistent trends that are in close agreement.
Can't you find something better? Perhaps something that has been peer reviewed or at least a press account of a peer reviewed articlre?
20 years is hopelessy out of date? I think not. That works in computers, but not climate. Man is changing his level of technology almost daily, and is using it to help study the issue at hand. But all we have done in 20 years is get perhaps a millimeter closer to the answer. Read the chapter I told you about. Each "cell" they used then in their studies was the size of the state of Kansas, IIRC. So much for computer models. They are rough drafts at best. And we can only guess at the many variables in ocean currents that affect our weather. They tend to change without respect to our scientists predictions. The recent rainfall anomaly in the northwest US is an example.
Peer review is what keeps the unconventional answers to problems from being considered. Everybody jumps on the bandwagon for the obvious, especially if they can get more government money to study it. The AMA has JAMA, and many times Doctors have had to prove their new ideas about treating diseases and ailments without the help of AMA. The IPCC acts just like AMA/JAMA with it's "peer review".
Just in case you are getting me wrong, I am in favor of studying the problem, and dealing with what we know we can do, like using less coal and/or adding scrubbers and bag houses to clean up some of the pollution. But, only as a stop gap until we replace them all with Nuclear Power Plants.
Of course, that only solves the problem of pollution from coal fired power plants. What do we do in China where they use coal for cooking and to heat their many poorly built homes, just like 200 years ago in Europe? The Chinese are not going to suddenly stop doing that, or insulate all their old homes, or mandate insulation in all new homes.
But back to CO2, and other Green House gases.
GH gases consist of water vapor (90%), CO2, oxides of Nitrogen, methane, and CFCs. The last 4 have had significant increases due to man, and CFCs are entierely man caused.
Methane is a bigger problem than CO2. It is increasing faster than CO2 and has about 20 times the heat holding power than CO2. CFCs are 20,000 times more effective than CO2 at holding heat, and that is the reason why there has been a big push to reduce them for a long time now. This info is from a 9 year old book, and I doubt the numbers have changed much in only 9 years. The same book says that there may even be a good side of more CO2, as in stimulating plant growth. Forests would grow in areas that are barren now. The only way to KNOW what will happen is to wait and see, but that could be the wrong thing.
There are no experts out there, just people in the process of becoming experts.
I see no reason to panic just because a bunch of financially and politically motivated scientists say we must. A part of my working career was spent in support of nuclear scientists, and I have heard them admit that they " need to find more aspects of nuclear power to study or we will lose our budget".
We already know many things to do that will make a huge dent in the problem, so why aren't we doing them? Why won't our politicians spend the money where it will have the most effect?
Bill55AZ
And cell size hasn't been reduced and model complexity hasn't been extended in the intervening 20 years to take advantage of advances in computer speed and memory? Anyway, if you could provide me with a link or access to your book, I will take a look at it. As it is, I find it unreasonable to refer me to a book of questionable validity that is probably out of print. Here is what Wert has to say about 20 year old computer models -its in the "From Small Models to Big Computers" section about 3/4th of way down the posting. I recommend reading the whole posting, indeed reading all or Wert's material is worthwhile. I posted his index earlier.
Wert on Models
And here is Wert's discussion of more modern General Circulation Models and linked models. GCM Discussion
Bill55AZ
You've been reading too much of Patrick Michael's and the other industry supported critics. Peer review is fundamental to modern science. I won't argue that it isn't occassional abused but its far more likely that an undeserving paper will get published than a deserving one will be turned down. Here is a report on peer view written by a British study group. Peer Review Study
You are right about methane being a more potent than CO2 and it has increased more in per centage terms than CO2. However, it has a shorter duration in the atmosphere and, in total, cause less forcing. From the IPCC's TAR:
IPCC Working Paper
One of the big dangers from methane is of a positive feedback from peat bogs and melting methane hydrates as temperatures increase.
I don't share your enthusiasm for fission power plants though I do think that building a new nuclear plant is far superior to a coal fired plant with unsequestered CO2. There is still a vast potential to improve the end use efficiency of electricity at a far lower cost than new power plants of any sort. See the RMI study "Winning the Oil End Game" available on line.
I won't quibble about CFCs but I think the ozone hole had a lot to do with targeting them. As for CO2 increasing plant growth, recent experiments in fields where 550ppm of CO2 were combined with the other expected constituents of the future atmosphere yielded results indicating a net reduction in grain yields of 10%. I can provide a reference if you like.
QUOTE
20 years is hopelessy out of date? I think not. That works in computers, but not climate. Man is changing his level of technology almost daily, and is using it to help study the issue at hand. But all we have done in 20 years is get perhaps a millimeter closer to the answer. Read the chapter I told you about. Each "cell" they used then in their studies was the size of the state of Kansas, IIRC. So much for computer models.
And cell size hasn't been reduced and model complexity hasn't been extended in the intervening 20 years to take advantage of advances in computer speed and memory? Anyway, if you could provide me with a link or access to your book, I will take a look at it. As it is, I find it unreasonable to refer me to a book of questionable validity that is probably out of print. Here is what Wert has to say about 20 year old computer models -its in the "From Small Models to Big Computers" section about 3/4th of way down the posting. I recommend reading the whole posting, indeed reading all or Wert's material is worthwhile. I posted his index earlier.
Wert on Models
QUOTE
For analyzing climate under current conditions, mammoth supercomputer models took over the field toward the end of the 1970s. The last great contribution of primitive one-dimensional and two-dimensional calculations was to provide a check. The most complex three-dimensional computer models seemed plausible once they were found to behave much the same as the simple models. Tests using a variety of small models came up with numbers close to the ones printed out by the biggest ones. In short, introducing the myriad complexities of a full-scale model did not change the plain lesson of global warming contained in the elementary physics that stretched back to Arrhenius
And here is Wert's discussion of more modern General Circulation Models and linked models. GCM Discussion
Bill55AZ
QUOTE
Peer review is what keeps the unconventional answers to problems from being considered.
You've been reading too much of Patrick Michael's and the other industry supported critics. Peer review is fundamental to modern science. I won't argue that it isn't occassional abused but its far more likely that an undeserving paper will get published than a deserving one will be turned down. Here is a report on peer view written by a British study group. Peer Review Study
QUOTE
1.5 What is often missed in public discussions of these kinds is the fact that scientists subject their work to a system called ‘peer review’, to determine which research papers qualify for publication in scientific journals.8 Formalised peer review began with some journals in the 18th century and scientists have used it as a systematised method of quality control for the last 100 years.
1.6 To succeed in getting a paper published, scientists must present their findings clearly for review by experts in their field, chosen by a knowledgeable, neutral journal editor. This process is the accepted route for making findings public: only once a paper has been reviewed, revised and published does the wider scientific community take it seriously, examine it and evaluate its contribution. For new work to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, researchers must first convince those knowledgeable in the same field about the plausibility of their claims and
the appropriateness of the research methods and evaluation techniques they use.
1.7 The peer-review system means that statements made by scientists in published papers are unlike other kinds of statements or claims. For example, claims made by politicians, newspaper columnists, think tanks or campaign groups are not systematically subjected to independent quality review beforehand.
1.6 To succeed in getting a paper published, scientists must present their findings clearly for review by experts in their field, chosen by a knowledgeable, neutral journal editor. This process is the accepted route for making findings public: only once a paper has been reviewed, revised and published does the wider scientific community take it seriously, examine it and evaluate its contribution. For new work to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, researchers must first convince those knowledgeable in the same field about the plausibility of their claims and
the appropriateness of the research methods and evaluation techniques they use.
1.7 The peer-review system means that statements made by scientists in published papers are unlike other kinds of statements or claims. For example, claims made by politicians, newspaper columnists, think tanks or campaign groups are not systematically subjected to independent quality review beforehand.
You are right about methane being a more potent than CO2 and it has increased more in per centage terms than CO2. However, it has a shorter duration in the atmosphere and, in total, cause less forcing. From the IPCC's TAR:
QUOTE
The radiative forcing due to increases of the well-mixed greenhouse gases from 1750 to 2000 is estimated to be 2.43 Wm-2: 1.46 Wm-2 from CO2; 0.48 Wm-2 from CH4; 0.34 Wm-2 from the halocarbons; and 0.15 Wm-2 from N2O
IPCC Working Paper
One of the big dangers from methane is of a positive feedback from peat bogs and melting methane hydrates as temperatures increase.
I don't share your enthusiasm for fission power plants though I do think that building a new nuclear plant is far superior to a coal fired plant with unsequestered CO2. There is still a vast potential to improve the end use efficiency of electricity at a far lower cost than new power plants of any sort. See the RMI study "Winning the Oil End Game" available on line.
I won't quibble about CFCs but I think the ozone hole had a lot to do with targeting them. As for CO2 increasing plant growth, recent experiments in fields where 550ppm of CO2 were combined with the other expected constituents of the future atmosphere yielded results indicating a net reduction in grain yields of 10%. I can provide a reference if you like.
And cell size hasn't been reduced and model complexity hasn't been extended in the intervening 20 years to take advantage of advances in computer speed and memory? Anyway, if you could provide me with a link or access to your book, I will take a look at it. As it is, I find it unreasonable to refer me to a book of questionable validity that is probably out of print.
Planet Earth, the book, is a companion volume to the PBS TV series. It should be available on eBay, Amazon, Half.com, etc.
Cell size has not been reduced by much if any. It takes a lot of sensors to do that.
The climate equation has a lot of parameters to consider, such as temperature, pressure, humidity, jet stream speed and location, surface winds speed and location, location of fronts, etc. etc. Then factor in coriolis effect for winds and water currents. Put all that info from various locations into 3 dimensional "boxes" called cells (size of Kansas), each having up to 12 layers that get averaged out, and use each cell as a single data point. Collect the data from as many cells as you can.
Using Newtons laws of motion, especially the "every action has a reaction" and it gets very complicated. Using a Cray supercomputer (20 years ago), you could forecast in 10 minute blocks. Enough blocks accurately predicted and you get a fairly good one day forecast, and less accurate 3 day forecasts, and even less accurate 6 day forecasts. Each time block is dependent on the previous one. Any error in any block and it messes up the forecasts.
Reduce the size of the cells and you get better "resolution", but at the time the book was written, there were no computers built that could handle that amount of data without bogging down. So you not only need better computers, but more sensors to get more data to reduce the size of the cells.
That is briefly what the book says. There is more, the book, or the video set, is worth finding and reading and having a copy on hand for when the kids get old enough to want to know "why the sky is blue".
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 11 2005, 12:24 PM)
QUOTE(Confused @ Jul 10 2005, 10:44 PM)
I am an atheist and a great believer in science, but acknowledge that the consensus of opinion amongst the scientific community is sometimes wrong. Let's not revise history, this was really said by many to many more.
Confused, I'll ask you to provide some sort of evidence in support of your claim that the consensus of opinion among scientists a few decades ago was that the earth was heading into another ice age. I recall it quite differently. Yes, the press reported some stories like that -- the press has always screwed up the science. Moreover, the press goes only for the sensational. If nine scientists say "nothing interesting is going to happen" and the tenth says "we're all going to die!" you can bet that the press will ignore the first nine and cover the tenth. So don't blame the sins of the press on science.
Erasmussimo, I have no such evidence. I was too young then to know and too old now to look. Perhaps scientists never thought that. Perhaps I ran two sentences together poorly. I didn't mean many scientists said it, but many people (teachers, parents etc.). If you re-read my post you will see that, in the first paragraph, I wrote, "I can only conclude that it must have originated from scientific theory. I don't know that for sure, but how else could it have?" I just know that it was a scary theory thrust upon me (a child) by many British schoolteachers in the 60's. I took it to be the truth, as any child would. Also, it was a school that taught children under 12 years old and none of the teachers majored in science.
However, my skepticism remains the same. I do not believe in God, Alien abductions or talking to the dead. I rely on science to bring me the truth, but I understand that scientists are human too and susceptible to passion, hope, fear and peer-group pressure. I prefer science proven to scientific theories. I am sure that you know the history of scientific folly-theories concerning the planets. Still ain't seen the wolf yet on this climate theory, but when I do I’ll jump onboard with gusto.
QUOTE(Confused @ Jul 11 2005, 10:57 PM)
Erasmussimo, I have no such evidence. I was too young then to know and too old now to look. Perhaps scientists never thought that. Perhaps I ran two sentences together poorly. I didn't mean many scientists said it, but many people (teachers, parents etc.). If you re-read my post you will see that, in the first paragraph, I wrote, "I can only conclude that it must have originated from scientific theory. I don't know that for sure, but how else could it have?" I just know that it was a scary theory thrust upon me (a child) by many British schoolteachers in the 60's. I took it to be the truth, as any child would. Also, it was a school that taught children under 12 years old and none of the teachers majored in science.
There was one scientist who came up with this next ice age claim and he managed to catch the attention of the press. His speculations were published in the scientific literature, so it wasn't that he was flat wrong, but in those papers he was arguing for a possibility that deserved consideration rather than a certainty. In the popular press, "possible" became "probable" and everybody got all worked up about it. Among scientists, the attitude was "well, it's a possibility, but we don't have enough data, and it's more likely that the earth is warming from the greenhouse effect." That attitude didn't interest the press, so it never got published.
I have been close to a number of stories that the press ran with, and I can tell you, the popular press never gets it right. They always exaggerate the dramatic component, minimize the complicated qualifications, and sex up the story. You are on firm ground treating anything from the popular press with great skepticism -- including its current representations on global warming. But please don't extend that skepticism to the community of scientists. Yes, any single scientist is subject to his own foibles and errors. But the community of scientists has excellent mechanisms for error-checking. In the last 100 years of scientific literature, there has not been a single case where the scientific community went off in the wrong direction. There were plenty of cases where the community was ignorant and remained open-minded, and many cases where controversies raged for decades, and many cases where some prominent scientists were absolutely certain but dead wrong. Even Einstein never could get quantum mechanics down his craw. There has not, however, been a single substantial issue where the community just plain got it wrong. When the community comes to a solid conclusion, we can place a lot of confidence in it.
The scientific community has not yet achieved consensus on many aspects of global warming. There's consensus that humans are releasing a lot more CO2, and that CO2 definitely increases the greenhouse effect, and so there should be some warming due to that. There is consensus that the earth is warming at an abnormally fast rate. A solid majority of scientists believe that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is compelling, but a significant minority believe that the evidence is not yet compelling. A tiny minority of scientists believe that global warming is a crock.
A major factor in all this is the amount of information being generated. Serious, broad, and sustained research into global warming is only a few decades old, and the problem is so large that some scientists do not consider the current body of knowledge adequate. However, the trend is undeniable: as more data has come in, more scientists have come to the conclusion that the data points to anthropogenic global warming. My guess is that within ten years deniers of anthropogenic global warming will be put into the same class with advocates of cold fusion. But we'll see.
Erasmussimo, good post. I would only add that most climate scientists think that the evidence is compelling enough that we should begin to take steps to address GW.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jul 12 2005, 06:11 PM)
Erasmussimo, good post. I would only add that most climate scientists think that the evidence is compelling enough that we should begin to take steps to address GW.
Yes, take steps, take action, and in a 2 prong effort. Reduce pollutants and prepare for strange weather at the same time.
I firmly believe that global warming and cooling are inevitable whatever the causes. Even if we totally eliminate man made contribution to the problem, Global warming will occur, and will be followed by Global cooling, and the cycle will continue. There will never be a safe way to control weather, so we have to accept what comes and adapt accordingly.
The steps to be taken by government and industry will probably be harder to accomplish that the steps taken by individuals.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 12 2005, 11:18 AM)
QUOTE(Confused @ Jul 11 2005, 10:57 PM)
Erasmussimo, I have no such evidence. I was too young then to know and too old now to look. Perhaps scientists never thought that. Perhaps I ran two sentences together poorly. I didn't mean many scientists said it, but many people (teachers, parents etc.). If you re-read my post you will see that, in the first paragraph, I wrote, "I can only conclude that it must have originated from scientific theory. I don't know that for sure, but how else could it have?" I just know that it was a scary theory thrust upon me (a child) by many British schoolteachers in the 60's. I took it to be the truth, as any child would. Also, it was a school that taught children under 12 years old and none of the teachers majored in science.
There was one scientist who came up with this next ice age claim and he managed to catch the attention of the press. His speculations were published in the scientific literature, so it wasn't that he was flat wrong, but in those papers he was arguing for a possibility that deserved consideration rather than a certainty. In the popular press, "possible" became "probable" and everybody got all worked up about it. Among scientists, the attitude was "well, it's a possibility, but we don't have enough data, and it's more likely that the earth is warming from the greenhouse effect." That attitude didn't interest the press, so it never got published.
I have been close to a number of stories that the press ran with, and I can tell you, the popular press never gets it right. They always exaggerate the dramatic component, minimize the complicated qualifications, and sex up the story. You are on firm ground treating anything from the popular press with great skepticism -- including its current representations on global warming. But please don't extend that skepticism to the community of scientists. Yes, any single scientist is subject to his own foibles and errors. But the community of scientists has excellent mechanisms for error-checking. In the last 100 years of scientific literature, there has not been a single case where the scientific community went off in the wrong direction. There were plenty of cases where the community was ignorant and remained open-minded, and many cases where controversies raged for decades, and many cases where some prominent scientists were absolutely certain but dead wrong. Even Einstein never could get quantum mechanics down his craw. There has not, however, been a single substantial issue where the community just plain got it wrong. When the community comes to a solid conclusion, we can place a lot of confidence in it.
The scientific community has not yet achieved consensus on many aspects of global warming. There's consensus that humans are releasing a lot more CO2, and that CO2 definitely increases the greenhouse effect, and so there should be some warming due to that. There is consensus that the earth is warming at an abnormally fast rate. A solid majority of scientists believe that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is compelling, but a significant minority believe that the evidence is not yet compelling. A tiny minority of scientists believe that global warming is a crock.
A major factor in all this is the amount of information being generated. Serious, broad, and sustained research into global warming is only a few decades old, and the problem is so large that some scientists do not consider the current body of knowledge adequate. However, the trend is undeniable: as more data has come in, more scientists have come to the conclusion that the data points to anthropogenic global warming. My guess is that within ten years deniers of anthropogenic global warming will be put into the same class with advocates of cold fusion. But we'll see.
With respect to the accuracy of the press, I can't say that I disagree with you. They usually get things pretty wrong. But, their incompetence is hardly limited to "scientific matters". They are even worse on political topics. But, I digress.
As pointed out by Michael Crighton in an essay that I referenced earlier, Crichton essay
"consensus" has been used by the scientists trumpeting the global warming "theory" in the absence of solid scientific evidence. And yes, a minority of scientists are staying true to the data and rejecting the "political" influences (and the financial aspects) on this debate.
Man made global warming is far from "proven". The simplistic CO2 based models don't accommodate all of the data and they fail to establish a baseline that defines the non-made-made natural temperature cycles of the planet.
As more data comes in, the theory is far from convincing. It even points to other non-man-made sources in many instances.
Sun is causing global warming
All that has been demonstrated is that the earth is warming. Period. But, anyone who realizes that we were in an ice age 10,000 years ago could see that glaring fact.
The premise that man is causing it is what's new. And unproven.
lordhelmet
Can't we debate the science. Articles like this one aren't science. When I tried to look into this article I found that the National Center was the National Center for Public Policy Research, a very conservative "think tank" publishing a variety of papers on subjects of a wide ranging nature and with no special focus on climate change or science generally. When I googled John Carlisle I found that he also posted article on almost as wide range of topics including The Games the AARP Plays
Carlisle Articles
Sallie Baliunas, the astrophysicist cited in the piece, is a well known critic of the consensus position. At least she has some scientific credentials. It is also true that she is closely associated with the Marshall Institute, another organization closely identified with right wing causes and which receives funding from fossil fuel companies. This is not to say that her views are totally without merit, but I think her motives are at least as suspect as any "consensus" scientists looking to fund a project.
As for the major contention of the article, the main stream of climate scientists have also considered the role of solar variation in warming and many concede that most of the warming in the late 19th and early 20th century was solar related but discount it as a cause of current warming. This is due both to the status of solar cycles and to the pattern of warming corrosponding to what models predict for greenhouse forcing which don't conform to patterns that solar variation would produce. See Wert again.
QUOTE
Sun is causing global warming
All that has been demonstrated is that the earth is warming. Period. But, anyone who realizes that we were in an ice age 10,000 years ago could see that glaring fact.
All that has been demonstrated is that the earth is warming. Period. But, anyone who realizes that we were in an ice age 10,000 years ago could see that glaring fact.
Can't we debate the science. Articles like this one aren't science. When I tried to look into this article I found that the National Center was the National Center for Public Policy Research, a very conservative "think tank" publishing a variety of papers on subjects of a wide ranging nature and with no special focus on climate change or science generally. When I googled John Carlisle I found that he also posted article on almost as wide range of topics including The Games the AARP Plays
Carlisle Articles
Sallie Baliunas, the astrophysicist cited in the piece, is a well known critic of the consensus position. At least she has some scientific credentials. It is also true that she is closely associated with the Marshall Institute, another organization closely identified with right wing causes and which receives funding from fossil fuel companies. This is not to say that her views are totally without merit, but I think her motives are at least as suspect as any "consensus" scientists looking to fund a project.
As for the major contention of the article, the main stream of climate scientists have also considered the role of solar variation in warming and many concede that most of the warming in the late 19th and early 20th century was solar related but discount it as a cause of current warming. This is due both to the status of solar cycles and to the pattern of warming corrosponding to what models predict for greenhouse forcing which don't conform to patterns that solar variation would produce. See Wert again.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jul 12 2005, 11:46 AM)
Even if we totally eliminate man made contribution to the problem, Global warming will occur, and will be followed by Global cooling, and the cycle will continue. There will never be a safe way to control weather, so we have to accept what comes and adapt accordingly.
Well, yes, even if we were to terminate all CO2 emissions immediately, we'd still have some temperature increase arising from past CO2 emissions. But the science is solid that, if we reduce CO2 emissions, we will likely reduce future temperature increases. And while it's true that long-term variations in average global surface temperatures are common, what we're facing over the next few score years is certainly abnormal.
The cost of adaptation will surely be enormous; depending on the magnitude of the temperature change, it could well destroy our economies.
Bill55AZ
[QUOTE]Cell size has not been reduced by much if any. It takes a lot of sensors to do that.[/QUOTE]
Since you insist on citing evidence from a 20 year old book, I doubt that we can make much progress in our discussion of climate change modeling. I did, however, want to share with you and other interested parties some of the fruits of my research on GCMs that our discussion prompted. (For me, such research is one of the benefits gained from the stimulation of discussion).
You are right in saying that horizontal resolution is still quite large. The smallest I found was one of the Hadley models with a resolution of 1.5 degrees by 1.5 degrees. Kansas is roughly 7 degrees by 4 degrees longitude and lattitude. The Goodard NASA models refered to below range from 4 X 5 degrees to 2 X 2.5 and the effective resolution is even larger as discussed in the body of this report. PDF NASA Report
The reasons for choosing different resolution size is set forth in the report.
[/QUOTE]We have chosen not to uniquely pursue
higher resolution, since that can severely limit the
length and variability of the experiments possible, but
rather we have maintained a variety of resolutions that
can be used based on scientific need. Our experience
has been that while some aspects of a simulation can
be improved by increasing the resolution (frontal definition,
boundary layer processes etc.), many equally
important improvements are likely to arise through improvements
to the physical parameterisations. Indeed,
some features (such as the stratospheric semi-annual oscillation,
high latitude sea level pressure or the zonality
of the flow field) are degraded in higher resolution simulations,
indicating that resolution increases alone, without
accompanying parameterisation improvement, will
not necessarily create a better climate model. As models
improve and computer resources expand, there will
always be a tension between the need to include more
physics (tracers, a more resolved stratosphere, cloud microphysics
etc.), to run longer simulations, and to have
more detailed vertical and horizontal resolution. The
balance that is struck will be different for any particular
application and so a flexible modeling environment
is a pre-requisite. In this paper, we therefore show results
from three different configurations that differ principally
in their horizontal and vertical resolution.
................................................................................
....................
Model..............Horizontal........ Effective...........Vertical...........Model
Configuration...Resolution....Trracer resolution...Layers.............Top
M20.............. 4×5.................. 1.3×1.6................20...............0.1 hPa
M23.............. 4×5.................. 1.3×1.6................23...............0.002 hPa
F20...............2×2.5................ 0.7×0.8............... 20...............0.1 hPa
SI2000..........4x5....................1.3×1.6................ 12.............10 hPa[QUOTE]
While it is possible to claim that the order of magnitude of "cell size" has decreased only somewhat over 20 years, it is not possible to maintain that the complexity and quality of modelling has not improved as new information is incorporated as it becomes available and as computer capabilities have improved.
I would suggest that you adopt some recent description of modelling like this one as your source of information and drop the 20 year old reference. Don't worry, there is still lots of things that one can pick at because scientists like these are careful to set forth their initial assumptions and the points where their model predictions fall short.
[QUOTE]Cell size has not been reduced by much if any. It takes a lot of sensors to do that.[/QUOTE]
Since you insist on citing evidence from a 20 year old book, I doubt that we can make much progress in our discussion of climate change modeling. I did, however, want to share with you and other interested parties some of the fruits of my research on GCMs that our discussion prompted. (For me, such research is one of the benefits gained from the stimulation of discussion).
You are right in saying that horizontal resolution is still quite large. The smallest I found was one of the Hadley models with a resolution of 1.5 degrees by 1.5 degrees. Kansas is roughly 7 degrees by 4 degrees longitude and lattitude. The Goodard NASA models refered to below range from 4 X 5 degrees to 2 X 2.5 and the effective resolution is even larger as discussed in the body of this report. PDF NASA Report
The reasons for choosing different resolution size is set forth in the report.
[/QUOTE]We have chosen not to uniquely pursue
higher resolution, since that can severely limit the
length and variability of the experiments possible, but
rather we have maintained a variety of resolutions that
can be used based on scientific need. Our experience
has been that while some aspects of a simulation can
be improved by increasing the resolution (frontal definition,
boundary layer processes etc.), many equally
important improvements are likely to arise through improvements
to the physical parameterisations. Indeed,
some features (such as the stratospheric semi-annual oscillation,
high latitude sea level pressure or the zonality
of the flow field) are degraded in higher resolution simulations,
indicating that resolution increases alone, without
accompanying parameterisation improvement, will
not necessarily create a better climate model. As models
improve and computer resources expand, there will
always be a tension between the need to include more
physics (tracers, a more resolved stratosphere, cloud microphysics
etc.), to run longer simulations, and to have
more detailed vertical and horizontal resolution. The
balance that is struck will be different for any particular
application and so a flexible modeling environment
is a pre-requisite. In this paper, we therefore show results
from three different configurations that differ principally
in their horizontal and vertical resolution.
................................................................................
....................
Model..............Horizontal........ Effective...........Vertical...........Model
Configuration...Resolution....Trracer resolution...Layers.............Top
M20.............. 4×5.................. 1.3×1.6................20...............0.1 hPa
M23.............. 4×5.................. 1.3×1.6................23...............0.002 hPa
F20...............2×2.5................ 0.7×0.8............... 20...............0.1 hPa
SI2000..........4x5....................1.3×1.6................ 12.............10 hPa[QUOTE]
While it is possible to claim that the order of magnitude of "cell size" has decreased only somewhat over 20 years, it is not possible to maintain that the complexity and quality of modelling has not improved as new information is incorporated as it becomes available and as computer capabilities have improved.
I would suggest that you adopt some recent description of modelling like this one as your source of information and drop the 20 year old reference. Don't worry, there is still lots of things that one can pick at because scientists like these are careful to set forth their initial assumptions and the points where their model predictions fall short.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jul 13 2005, 05:17 PM)
Bill55AZ
Since you insist on citing evidence from a 20 year old book, I doubt that we can make much progress in our discussion of climate change modeling. I did, however, want to share with you and other interested parties some of the fruits of my research on GCMs that our discussion prompted. (For me, such research is one of the benefits gained from the stimulation of discussion).
While it is possible to claim that the order of magnitude of "cell size" has only decreased only somewhat over 20 years, it is not possible to maintain that the complexity and quality of modelling has not improved as new information is incorporated as it becomes available and computer capabilities improve.
I would suggest that you adopt some recent description of modelling like this one as your source of information and drop the 20 year old reference. Don't worry, there is still lots of things that critics can pick at because scientists like these are careful to set forth their initial assumptions and the points where their model predictions fall short.
QUOTE
Cell size has not been reduced by much if any. It takes a lot of sensors to do that.
Since you insist on citing evidence from a 20 year old book, I doubt that we can make much progress in our discussion of climate change modeling. I did, however, want to share with you and other interested parties some of the fruits of my research on GCMs that our discussion prompted. (For me, such research is one of the benefits gained from the stimulation of discussion).
While it is possible to claim that the order of magnitude of "cell size" has only decreased only somewhat over 20 years, it is not possible to maintain that the complexity and quality of modelling has not improved as new information is incorporated as it becomes available and computer capabilities improve.
I would suggest that you adopt some recent description of modelling like this one as your source of information and drop the 20 year old reference. Don't worry, there is still lots of things that critics can pick at because scientists like these are careful to set forth their initial assumptions and the points where their model predictions fall short.
Well, since you insist on not reading my posts, or perhaps not being able to understand what I mean when I say that the power of computers and quality of modeling is not all there is to the problem, then yes, I will stop trying to educate/convince you. I spent a lot of years gathering data that others used in their computer modeling, and you can only gather so much in a given time frame.
We dealt with the factors that had the largest effect on the outcome of the "best guess" equation, knowing full well that the less important factors could collectively mess up the answer. It isn't like we have instrumentation everywhere to feed data to the computers. Satellites help, but some parameters measured from space are not accurate enough so ground data is stil required.
Most science, even from books that are older than 20 years, is still valid and accurate, even if we do know more about it now. I am just as able as you to google on the internet, and get a lot of data that in no way refutes the fact that Global temperature change is going to happen no matter what we do, and that we will have to adapt. The expense in doing so is not an issue. If it gets too warm for too long, we WILL adapt in some way or another. We always have, always will.
History records that truth in many ways.
Those that did not adapt died, allowing the overall average IQ of the human race to increase. That is nature's way, and we have no choice but to deal with it as best we can.
BTW, your post supports what I say about the difficulty of getting enough data on all the parameters involved. It even mentions parameters that I did not include.
Just in case anyone cares here is the topic:
If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
If someone wants to start a topic about the merits of Global Warming go right ahead. The question here is it possible to stop the warming? I have seen little evidence in this debate to support the fact that the warming can be stopped or is dangerous as the scaremongers claim.
The second question is an economics question. From an economic standpoint it appears that it will be more beneficial for society to adapt to the alleged changes than try to stop the changes from occurring (as mentioned in the original post).
If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
If someone wants to start a topic about the merits of Global Warming go right ahead. The question here is it possible to stop the warming? I have seen little evidence in this debate to support the fact that the warming can be stopped or is dangerous as the scaremongers claim.
The second question is an economics question. From an economic standpoint it appears that it will be more beneficial for society to adapt to the alleged changes than try to stop the changes from occurring (as mentioned in the original post).
QUOTE(nemov @ Jun 20 2005, 10:49 AM)
If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
1. It's not. Even if it was, it is not stoppable because volcanoes are the biggest problem. Volcanoes are uncontrollable.
2. There isn't a problem.This is why. In fact, it was colder, and recently, it became slightly warmer, and environmentalists are screaming "Apocalypse!!!" Proof
[quote=nemov,Jul 13 2005, 10:57 AM]
Just in case anyone cares here is the topic:
If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
If someone wants to start a topic about the merits of Global Warming go right ahead. The question here is it possible to stop the warming? I have seen little evidence in this debate to support the fact that the warming can be stopped or is dangerous as the scaremongers claim.
The second question is an economics question. From an economic standpoint it appears that it will be more beneficial for society to adapt to the alleged changes than try to stop the changes from occurring (as mentioned in the original post).
[/quote]
Your orginal post used a reference to Bjorn Lomborg statements. His conclusions rely on his interpretation of the science (to determine the costs of GW) and on his estimates of the cost of adapting. On this thread you and I exchanged postings on Lomborg's work where I tried to show it wasn't accepted by much of the scientific communinty nor by many statiticians.
The status of the science and the predictions it makes are relevant to the costs of both climate change and the costs of adapting. Obviously if you accept the extreme predictions like the Hadley experimental study with linked personal computers their is no possibility of hoping to adapt. Articles on Hadley Study
[/QUOTE]Until now, most computer models of climate change predict that if atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double of the pre-industrial age, the Earth's surface temperature will be between 2 and 5° C (3.6-9.0° F) warmer when compared with 1990 levels.
But a study published Thursday in the journal Nature suggests that the temperature rise could be much higher of between nearly 2° (3.6° F) and more than 11° C (19.8° F). [QUOTE]
How can anyone frame a response without discussing different projections of what we will need to mitigate or adapt to? Perhaps the discussion of modelling did digress a little too far, but most of the discussion was relevant to your questions.
Most of us participating in this thread have agreed that we have to adapt to the degree of climate change already in place or in the pipeline and that, because of the uncertainty, take initial steps to lower GH gas releases and prepare for more drastic steps should the situation warrant it.
Just in case anyone cares here is the topic:
If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
If someone wants to start a topic about the merits of Global Warming go right ahead. The question here is it possible to stop the warming? I have seen little evidence in this debate to support the fact that the warming can be stopped or is dangerous as the scaremongers claim.
The second question is an economics question. From an economic standpoint it appears that it will be more beneficial for society to adapt to the alleged changes than try to stop the changes from occurring (as mentioned in the original post).
[/quote]
Your orginal post used a reference to Bjorn Lomborg statements. His conclusions rely on his interpretation of the science (to determine the costs of GW) and on his estimates of the cost of adapting. On this thread you and I exchanged postings on Lomborg's work where I tried to show it wasn't accepted by much of the scientific communinty nor by many statiticians.
The status of the science and the predictions it makes are relevant to the costs of both climate change and the costs of adapting. Obviously if you accept the extreme predictions like the Hadley experimental study with linked personal computers their is no possibility of hoping to adapt. Articles on Hadley Study
[/QUOTE]Until now, most computer models of climate change predict that if atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double of the pre-industrial age, the Earth's surface temperature will be between 2 and 5° C (3.6-9.0° F) warmer when compared with 1990 levels.
But a study published Thursday in the journal Nature suggests that the temperature rise could be much higher of between nearly 2° (3.6° F) and more than 11° C (19.8° F). [QUOTE]
How can anyone frame a response without discussing different projections of what we will need to mitigate or adapt to? Perhaps the discussion of modelling did digress a little too far, but most of the discussion was relevant to your questions.
Most of us participating in this thread have agreed that we have to adapt to the degree of climate change already in place or in the pipeline and that, because of the uncertainty, take initial steps to lower GH gas releases and prepare for more drastic steps should the situation warrant it.
Yes, global warming is a threat to anything on earth. Yes, we should invest money in the fight to stop it.
QUOTE(Democrat1 @ Jul 15 2005, 01:48 AM)
Yes, global warming is a threat to anything on earth. Yes, we should invest money in the fight to stop it.
Do you have any evidence to support your claims? You didn't fully answer the questions posed in the topic. This topic presupposes that the Global Warming is a threat.
If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?
QUOTE(Democrat1 @ Jul 15 2005, 01:48 AM)
Yes, global warming is a threat to anything on earth. Yes, we should invest money in the fight to stop it.
How's that? How much money will it take to reverse the natural fluctuations of earth? Should we work on reversing the direction of rotation too? How about changing the composition of the atmosphere? Can we invest money to reverse plate tectonics, stop earthquakes, and prevent hurricanes and tornados too? What about floods? Certainly our scientists should be able to stop them given enough money, right?
Man's impact on the "environment" is infinitesimal. It pales in comparison to the impact of the sun, volcanic activity, and the cycles of the oceans.
It's something that people get all worked up about for no good reason. Kinda like Karl Rove.
lordhelmet
That's why the vast majority of climate scientists are seriously concerned. That's why the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, and the corresponding groups in all the rest of the G8 nations plus those of India, Brazil, and China issued a joint statement saying it was time to take some initial action. Academies PDF Statement
All of the scientists serving on these bodies and the scientist members they serve can, of course, be dismissed by you as "environmental alarmist." The simple fact is that you don't want to look at the science and prefer to parrot the disinformation put out by the "skeptics."
Many initial steps could be taken that would not be economically burdensome. A lot of these steps will have to be taken anyway to accommodate a tightening oil market increasingly reliant upon unstable areas of the world. See RMI Energy Study. There will be some winners and some losers as there are with any change but we can go a great distance at less cost than with the current energy system and even farther at similar costs. There are also intelligent strategies to limit the near term impacts of GH gases at reasonable costs. See Hansen Alternative.
Admittedly, if the evidence keeps mounting and the higher temperature change scenarios seem more likely, we will have to take extremely expensive steps to maintain a viable earth.
There are no valid economic projections that show it would be cheaper to adapt than to address the build up of GH gases. Any study that purports to do so has to make initial assumptions about the costs of climate change and those costs estimates very widely with different assumptions about forcing sensitivity and potential positive and negative reinforcement. Bjorn Lumborg tried to make this case but he has been extensively critiqued for both his scientific assumptions and for his statistical projections.
QUOTE
How's that? How much money will it take to reverse the natural fluctuations of earth? Should we work on reversing the direction of rotation too? How about changing the composition of the atmosphere? Can we invest money to reverse plate tectonics, stop earthquakes, and prevent hurricanes and tornados too? What about floods? Certainly our scientists should be able to stop them given enough money, right?
Man's impact on the "environment" is infinitesimal. It pales in comparison to the impact of the sun, volcanic activity, and the cycles of the oceans.
Man's impact on the "environment" is infinitesimal. It pales in comparison to the impact of the sun, volcanic activity, and the cycles of the oceans.
That's why the vast majority of climate scientists are seriously concerned. That's why the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, and the corresponding groups in all the rest of the G8 nations plus those of India, Brazil, and China issued a joint statement saying it was time to take some initial action. Academies PDF Statement
QUOTE
We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the
Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear
and increasing.
· Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed
targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed
unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed
action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. · Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency,
and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.
Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear
and increasing.
· Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed
targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed
unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed
action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. · Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency,
and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.
All of the scientists serving on these bodies and the scientist members they serve can, of course, be dismissed by you as "environmental alarmist." The simple fact is that you don't want to look at the science and prefer to parrot the disinformation put out by the "skeptics."
Many initial steps could be taken that would not be economically burdensome. A lot of these steps will have to be taken anyway to accommodate a tightening oil market increasingly reliant upon unstable areas of the world. See RMI Energy Study. There will be some winners and some losers as there are with any change but we can go a great distance at less cost than with the current energy system and even farther at similar costs. There are also intelligent strategies to limit the near term impacts of GH gases at reasonable costs. See Hansen Alternative.
Admittedly, if the evidence keeps mounting and the higher temperature change scenarios seem more likely, we will have to take extremely expensive steps to maintain a viable earth.
There are no valid economic projections that show it would be cheaper to adapt than to address the build up of GH gases. Any study that purports to do so has to make initial assumptions about the costs of climate change and those costs estimates very widely with different assumptions about forcing sensitivity and potential positive and negative reinforcement. Bjorn Lumborg tried to make this case but he has been extensively critiqued for both his scientific assumptions and for his statistical projections.
Allow me to ask a question from a slightly different angle.
What nobody disagrees with here, is that a majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the current trend of global warming is not a natural occurance, has been caused by human intervention, and needs to be dealt with by human intervention. There have been many thread discussing the nature of the 'majority', wheither it is an absolute majority, or a strong majority or a slight ,majority or whatever else, but regardless of that non-debate, one cannot deny at the moment that significantly over 50% of scientists in relevant fields seem to agree on the human impact on global warming.
Therefore, it seems to me that the opponents of this theory, those that state that the recent (relatively) massive spike in temperature, CO2 and weather patterns are all a natural phenomenon need to deal with majority opinion first and foremost.
I have heard a lot of explanations by the anti-global warming crowd for this majority opinion, including:
-Well scientists once thought the earth was flat (which, incedentally, is not true, unless you mean scientists pre-Aristotle)
-You cant get money/get grants/get published if you dare disagree with the established theory
-Its a conspiracy among scientists.
I may hve missed some, if I have please enlighten me. My question then, is there any actual basis for any of these theories? The oft-mentioned issue of 'research grants and money' is complete fiction, and I can say this with some certainty being both an academic now (and knowing how academic research works and is funded) and having spent 4 years working for the primary research funding agency in Canada before I obtained my doctorate.
So, I suppose my question is, if you are so convinced that Global warming is completely natural, how do you explain the fact that most scientists in the field, who know more about the issue than you (or I) do, completely disagree with you? How is it that in the last six years, there have been 11 major international, academic, peer-reviewed studies supporting the human-influence model of global warming, and not a single one which disproves it? How it is that the National scientific bodies of every nation in the G-15 all endorse the human-influence model of global warming?
I have always wondered that.
What nobody disagrees with here, is that a majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the current trend of global warming is not a natural occurance, has been caused by human intervention, and needs to be dealt with by human intervention. There have been many thread discussing the nature of the 'majority', wheither it is an absolute majority, or a strong majority or a slight ,majority or whatever else, but regardless of that non-debate, one cannot deny at the moment that significantly over 50% of scientists in relevant fields seem to agree on the human impact on global warming.
Therefore, it seems to me that the opponents of this theory, those that state that the recent (relatively) massive spike in temperature, CO2 and weather patterns are all a natural phenomenon need to deal with majority opinion first and foremost.
I have heard a lot of explanations by the anti-global warming crowd for this majority opinion, including:
-Well scientists once thought the earth was flat (which, incedentally, is not true, unless you mean scientists pre-Aristotle)
-You cant get money/get grants/get published if you dare disagree with the established theory
-Its a conspiracy among scientists.
I may hve missed some, if I have please enlighten me. My question then, is there any actual basis for any of these theories? The oft-mentioned issue of 'research grants and money' is complete fiction, and I can say this with some certainty being both an academic now (and knowing how academic research works and is funded) and having spent 4 years working for the primary research funding agency in Canada before I obtained my doctorate.
So, I suppose my question is, if you are so convinced that Global warming is completely natural, how do you explain the fact that most scientists in the field, who know more about the issue than you (or I) do, completely disagree with you? How is it that in the last six years, there have been 11 major international, academic, peer-reviewed studies supporting the human-influence model of global warming, and not a single one which disproves it? How it is that the National scientific bodies of every nation in the G-15 all endorse the human-influence model of global warming?
I have always wondered that.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Jul 19 2005, 01:12 PM)
Allow me to ask a question from a slightly different angle.
What nobody disagrees with here, is that a majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the current trend of global warming is not a natural occurance, has been caused by human intervention, and needs to be dealt with by human intervention. There have been many thread discussing the nature of the 'majority', wheither it is an absolute majority, or a strong majority or a slight ,majority or whatever else, but regardless of that non-debate, one cannot deny at the moment that significantly over 50% of scientists in relevant fields seem to agree on the human impact on global warming.
Therefore, it seems to me that the opponents of this theory, those that state that the recent (relatively) massive spike in temperature, CO2 and weather patterns are all a natural phenomenon need to deal with majority opinion first and foremost.
I have heard a lot of explanations by the anti-global warming crowd for this majority opinion, including:
-Well scientists once thought the earth was flat (which, incedentally, is not true, unless you mean scientists pre-Aristotle)
-You cant get money/get grants/get published if you dare disagree with the established theory
-Its a conspiracy among scientists.
I may hve missed some, if I have please enlighten me. My question then, is there any actual basis for any of these theories? The oft-mentioned issue of 'research grants and money' is complete fiction, and I can say this with some certainty being both an academic now (and knowing how academic research works and is funded) and having spent 4 years working for the primary research funding agency in Canada before I obtained my doctorate.
So, I suppose my question is, if you are so convinced that Global warming is completely natural, how do you explain the fact that most scientists in the field, who know more about the issue than you (or I) do, completely disagree with you? How is it that in the last six years, there have been 11 major international, academic, peer-reviewed studies supporting the human-influence model of global warming, and not a single one which disproves it? How it is that the National scientific bodies of every nation in the G-15 all endorse the human-influence model of global warming?
I have always wondered that.
What nobody disagrees with here, is that a majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the current trend of global warming is not a natural occurance, has been caused by human intervention, and needs to be dealt with by human intervention. There have been many thread discussing the nature of the 'majority', wheither it is an absolute majority, or a strong majority or a slight ,majority or whatever else, but regardless of that non-debate, one cannot deny at the moment that significantly over 50% of scientists in relevant fields seem to agree on the human impact on global warming.
Therefore, it seems to me that the opponents of this theory, those that state that the recent (relatively) massive spike in temperature, CO2 and weather patterns are all a natural phenomenon need to deal with majority opinion first and foremost.
I have heard a lot of explanations by the anti-global warming crowd for this majority opinion, including:
-Well scientists once thought the earth was flat (which, incedentally, is not true, unless you mean scientists pre-Aristotle)
-You cant get money/get grants/get published if you dare disagree with the established theory
-Its a conspiracy among scientists.
I may hve missed some, if I have please enlighten me. My question then, is there any actual basis for any of these theories? The oft-mentioned issue of 'research grants and money' is complete fiction, and I can say this with some certainty being both an academic now (and knowing how academic research works and is funded) and having spent 4 years working for the primary research funding agency in Canada before I obtained my doctorate.
So, I suppose my question is, if you are so convinced that Global warming is completely natural, how do you explain the fact that most scientists in the field, who know more about the issue than you (or I) do, completely disagree with you? How is it that in the last six years, there have been 11 major international, academic, peer-reviewed studies supporting the human-influence model of global warming, and not a single one which disproves it? How it is that the National scientific bodies of every nation in the G-15 all endorse the human-influence model of global warming?
I have always wondered that.
Vermillion, you asked a lot of great questions. However, they are off topic here. My questions were economic in nature and as such are probably not such a sexy debate topic.
Debate aside there seems to be a trend to believe everything about global warming or be skeptical on every aspect of climate change. It is possible that human induced global warming is taking place, but it also possible that many of the change that take place are not as catastrophic as predicted. One can believe in human induced global warming, but not believe it is the greatest threat to humankind (I believe Lomborg falls into that category).
People that cite scientific studies and then say the current hurricane activity, red tide, tornados, and droughts are result of climate change constantly amaze me. The evidence is not there but it as if they need some bad weather to scare the world into believing the theory.
Moving back on topic…. until there are substantial ill effects from Global Warming I think government intervention will be modest. It does not make economic sense to invest heavily in deterring something that no one is sure can be stopped.
QUOTE(nemov @ Jul 19 2005, 10:46 AM)
It does not make economic sense to invest heavily in deterring something that no one is sure can be stopped.
Yes, it can. Suppose that the present value of future costs of global warming over the next century amount to $10 trillion. Suppose further that we can reduce that figure by $1 trillion if we accept present costs amounting to $500 billion. Then it makes perfect economic sense to spend the $500 billion now.
Your point that there exists uncertainty is significant, but not compelling. After all, every business operates under tremendous uncertainty. There are business executives out there who bet billions of dollars on investments that are much less certain than the type of investments we see for global warming.
I agree that we don't want to start off spending a trillion bucks on the problem just yet. My call would be that expenditures on the order of $100 billion are about right.
nemov
What do you define as substantial? Melting glaciers in the Andes already threaten Lima's water supply. Neither the U.S. nor the international community has offered to pony up the millions require to extend their water gathering system. There have been massive bird die offs in the Baltic and Northsea because the eco-system changed and they starved. Now the same thing appears to be happening off the coast of my own state of Washington.
It not a matter of stopping global warming. All the scientists have concluded that it can't be because at least another .7 degrees C is built into the GH gases already released and the already warmed oceans. What is at stake is curtailing temperature increases beyond that. The longer we wait, the more serious the consequences, and the higher the cost and economic disruption to address it.
QUOTE
Moving back on topic…. until there are substantial ill effects from Global Warming I think government intervention will be modest. It does not make economic sense to invest heavily in deterring something that no one is sure can be stopped.
What do you define as substantial? Melting glaciers in the Andes already threaten Lima's water supply. Neither the U.S. nor the international community has offered to pony up the millions require to extend their water gathering system. There have been massive bird die offs in the Baltic and Northsea because the eco-system changed and they starved. Now the same thing appears to be happening off the coast of my own state of Washington.
It not a matter of stopping global warming. All the scientists have concluded that it can't be because at least another .7 degrees C is built into the GH gases already released and the already warmed oceans. What is at stake is curtailing temperature increases beyond that. The longer we wait, the more serious the consequences, and the higher the cost and economic disruption to address it.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jul 19 2005, 02:11 PM)
nemov
What do you define as substantial? Melting glaciers in the Andes already threaten Lima's water supply. Neither the U.S. nor the international community has offered to pony up the millions require to extend their water gathering system. There have been massive bird die offs in the Baltic and Northsea because the eco-system changed and they starved. Now the same thing appears to be happening off the coast of my own state of Washington.
It not a matter of stopping global warming. All the scientists have concluded that it can't be because at least another .7 degrees C is built into the GH gases already released and the already warmed oceans. What is at stake is curtailing temperature increases beyond that. The longer we wait, the more serious the consequences, and the higher the cost and economic disruption to address it.
QUOTE
Moving back on topic…. until there are substantial ill effects from Global Warming I think government intervention will be modest. It does not make economic sense to invest heavily in deterring something that no one is sure can be stopped.
What do you define as substantial? Melting glaciers in the Andes already threaten Lima's water supply. Neither the U.S. nor the international community has offered to pony up the millions require to extend their water gathering system. There have been massive bird die offs in the Baltic and Northsea because the eco-system changed and they starved. Now the same thing appears to be happening off the coast of my own state of Washington.
It not a matter of stopping global warming. All the scientists have concluded that it can't be because at least another .7 degrees C is built into the GH gases already released and the already warmed oceans. What is at stake is curtailing temperature increases beyond that. The longer we wait, the more serious the consequences, and the higher the cost and economic disruption to address it.
In this thread about our war on terrorism you said this:
QUOTE
Why is it that we are so fearful of terrorism that we will expend hundreds of billions in trying to eliminate it and give comparatively much less resources and attention to other things that take more human life.
So you stipulate that terrorism is blown way out of proportion and that we should fear car accidents more than a suicide bomb attack. Your reasoning? More people die in car accidents than from terrorist attacks. Yet now...global warming which has not to my knowledge killed anyone (or will kill anyone) is worth our attention and resources? Now who's afraid of what?
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 19 2005, 11:19 AM)
Yet now...global warming which has not to my knowledge killed anyone (or will kill anyone) is worth our attention and resources? Now who's afraid of what?
I believe that you are mistaken in your belief that global warming has no lethal potential. Every year there are floods in Bangladesh that kill thousands. Global warming will surely increase the magnitude of those floods, which in turn will lead to more deaths.
Global warming will lead to more rainfall in some areas, and less rainfall in other areas. Those areas that experience more rainfall will also experience more flooding, because they are not equipped for higher levels of flooding. Those areas that experience less rainfall will suffer lower crop yields, which will lead to more starvation.
There are myriad ways that global warming will change the world. Some changes will be beneficial. Some changes will be benign. Some will be mere inconveniences. Some will be unpleasant, but manageable. Some will cost money. Some will kill people. Do not underestimate the power of weather to affect our lifes. One thunderstorm, tapping into nothing more than the warmth of sunlight upon damp fields, can release as much energy as a nuclear weapon.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 19 2005, 03:36 PM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 19 2005, 11:19 AM)
Yet now...global warming which has not to my knowledge killed anyone (or will kill anyone) is worth our attention and resources? Now who's afraid of what?
I believe that you are mistaken in your belief that global warming has no lethal potential. Every year there are floods in Bangladesh that kill thousands. Global warming will surely increase the magnitude of those floods, which in turn will lead to more deaths.
Global warming will lead to more rainfall in some areas, and less rainfall in other areas. Those areas that experience more rainfall will also experience more flooding, because they are not equipped for higher levels of flooding. Those areas that experience less rainfall will suffer lower crop yields, which will lead to more starvation.
There are myriad ways that global warming will change the world. Some changes will be beneficial. Some changes will be benign. Some will be mere inconveniences. Some will be unpleasant, but manageable. Some will cost money. Some will kill people. Do not underestimate the power of weather to affect our lifes. One thunderstorm, tapping into nothing more than the warmth of sunlight upon damp fields, can release as much energy as a nuclear weapon.
Why should we fear the effects of global warming any more than the effects of terrorism? Are you not in a state of alarm due to the thought of global warming? Are you acting rationally or irrationally to something that has not even been proven to be true? How about we take a page out of your book of logic?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=160235
QUOTE
If we measure security by the probability that we will be injured or killed, then terrorism simply does not constitute a significant threat to our security, because the probability that any single American will die due to terrorist action is lost in the noise of accidental deaths.
How about we replace the word terrorism with global warming?
lederuvpac
I considered including global warming and the end of cheap oil in the Terrorism thread but thought they would unnecessary complicate and distract from the focus of that discussion. Actually it is not true that no one has died from global warming. It's just difficult to tease apart the impact of global warming from natural climate variation. For example, the heat wave in Paris in 2003 killed 15,000 and it caused crop failures all over Europe. India also suffered a similar heat wave and deaths. Heat Wave Article Global warming is also suspected to have contributed to drought in the Sahel in Africa and the associated deaths from starvation and malnutrition.
As for the future, there is little question that global warming will cause numerous deaths even if it only follows the lowest track projected by the IPCC. In 3 of the last 4 years the world consummed more food than it produced drawing down stocks. In 2004, a bumper year, we barely matched our consumption. We're adding about 70 million new mouths per year. Land under cultivation is shrinking almost everywhere but Brazil. Deserts are advancing, and acquivers are being drawn down resulting in less area under irrigation. Meanwhile many fisheries have collapsed or are collapsing. Other ways of increasing food production are close to their theoretical limit. Contrary to the skeptics claim that increased CO2 would boost plant growth, recent studies have shown that grain yields are reduced by about 10% per 1 degree C increase in temperature. Add to that the fact that global warming is forecast to warm land areas more than oceans and continental interiors more than coastal area and that most big grain production areas are in continental interiors. This scenario is likely to result in the starvation of millions and in increased world instability.
You bet, I worry about global warming. I also worry about the end of cheap oil primarily because of its likely impact on food production and distribution. I also worried about and tried to call attention to the threat from terrorism long before it was fashionable. It is pricisely because we have so many fundamental issues that require our attention that we can't become totally obsessed with terrorism and allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who use our fear for their own purposes. Terrorism is a threat and will remain a threat and must be dealt with but it is far less of a fundamental threat than global warming.
QUOTE
So you stipulate that terrorism is blown way out of proportion and that we should fear car accidents more than a suicide bomb attack. Your reasoning? More people die in car accidents than from terrorist attacks. Yet now...global warming which has not to my knowledge killed anyone (or will kill anyone) is worth our attention and resources? Now who's afraid of what?
I considered including global warming and the end of cheap oil in the Terrorism thread but thought they would unnecessary complicate and distract from the focus of that discussion. Actually it is not true that no one has died from global warming. It's just difficult to tease apart the impact of global warming from natural climate variation. For example, the heat wave in Paris in 2003 killed 15,000 and it caused crop failures all over Europe. India also suffered a similar heat wave and deaths. Heat Wave Article Global warming is also suspected to have contributed to drought in the Sahel in Africa and the associated deaths from starvation and malnutrition.
As for the future, there is little question that global warming will cause numerous deaths even if it only follows the lowest track projected by the IPCC. In 3 of the last 4 years the world consummed more food than it produced drawing down stocks. In 2004, a bumper year, we barely matched our consumption. We're adding about 70 million new mouths per year. Land under cultivation is shrinking almost everywhere but Brazil. Deserts are advancing, and acquivers are being drawn down resulting in less area under irrigation. Meanwhile many fisheries have collapsed or are collapsing. Other ways of increasing food production are close to their theoretical limit. Contrary to the skeptics claim that increased CO2 would boost plant growth, recent studies have shown that grain yields are reduced by about 10% per 1 degree C increase in temperature. Add to that the fact that global warming is forecast to warm land areas more than oceans and continental interiors more than coastal area and that most big grain production areas are in continental interiors. This scenario is likely to result in the starvation of millions and in increased world instability.
You bet, I worry about global warming. I also worry about the end of cheap oil primarily because of its likely impact on food production and distribution. I also worried about and tried to call attention to the threat from terrorism long before it was fashionable. It is pricisely because we have so many fundamental issues that require our attention that we can't become totally obsessed with terrorism and allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who use our fear for their own purposes. Terrorism is a threat and will remain a threat and must be dealt with but it is far less of a fundamental threat than global warming.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jul 19 2005, 03:56 PM)
Actually I considered including global warming and the end of cheap oil in the Terrorism thread but thought they would unnecessary complicate and distract from the focus of that discussion. Actually it is not true that no one has died from global warming. It's just difficult to tease apart the impact of global warming from natural climate variation. The heat wave in Paris in 2003 killed 15,000 and it caused crop failures all over Europe. India also suffered a similar heat wave. Heat Wave Article Global warming is also suspected to have contributed to drought in the Sahel in Africa and the associated deaths from starvation and malnutrition.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Extreme weather is not new. Now we have someone blaming human induced climate change for the 15,000 deaths in Paris. What about the dust bowl? More people die from winter related death each year than heat deaths (26,596 died in London alone each year).
Apologies for interjecting, and this may even sound flippant, but... In just 40 years, a computer that used to take up many rooms can now fit in a fingernail. In the past 100 years we have invented automobiles, and now they are so cheap that 100 million Chinese will have them before long. We have landed on the moon, landed spacecraft on Mars and have spaceships setting out to beyond the galaxy to beam back information. We have pharmaceutical drugs that cure even the most complex diseases, both physiological and mental. We have split the atom, and harnessed it for peaceful power and wartime violence.
Am I the only one not worried about man-made global warming, because by the time its effect has been fully proven, effectively measured, we will have either:
- moved on to cleaner energy sources, reducing greenhouse gases and future warming.
- be able to actually change the weather through science
Again, apologies for the somewhat off-topic take. Just trotted the right-brain out for a spin.
Am I the only one not worried about man-made global warming, because by the time its effect has been fully proven, effectively measured, we will have either:
- moved on to cleaner energy sources, reducing greenhouse gases and future warming.
- be able to actually change the weather through science
Again, apologies for the somewhat off-topic take. Just trotted the right-brain out for a spin.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 19 2005, 12:53 PM)
Why should we fear the effects of global warming any more than the effects of terrorism? Are you not in a state of alarm due to the thought of global warming? Are you acting rationally or irrationally to something that has not even been proven to be true? How about we take a page out of your book of logic?
Fear has nothing to do with it; it's just rational calculation. The numbers suggest that we will lose a lot of money if we don't do anything to address global warming. If we invest some money now in slowing it down, we could well reduce future losses by far more than present costs. Of course, we have to make the right investments, and we have to balance the amount invested against the likely magnitude of damage. But in the end, it's a matter for rationalism, not emotionalism.
nemov
So your proposition (and that of Patrick J. Michaels) is that those who didn't die of the cold, that was a normal pattern and for which they or society could have protected them from, offsets those who died from the heat, that wasn't part of normal expectations? I think we will have to prepare ourselves for a lot of this kind of rationalizing. The heat wave was the most severe that Paris had ever experienced since records began. The fact that the nighttime temperatures were particularly elevated, a pattern predicted by GW projections, mades it reasonable to conclude that GW contributed to it.
Anyway, I only raised this as an example of probable current deaths from the .7 C rise we have so far experienced. I could just as easily used the detectable increases in infectious diseases.
You ignored the thrust of my argument but then, according to you, the possibility of these deaths shouldn't be considered until they occur. By the same logic, the possibility of a major terrorist attack shouldn't have been considered until after 9/11.
Despite my fears of the consequences of GW I have remained relatively modest in my recommendations on actions because I continue to recognize some uncertainty. I have also tried to balance it against other risks.
QUOTE
This is exactly what I was talking about. Extreme weather is not new. Now we have someone blaming human induced climate change for the 15,000 deaths in Paris. What about the dust bowl? More people die from winter related death each year than heat deaths (26,596 died in London alone each year).
So your proposition (and that of Patrick J. Michaels) is that those who didn't die of the cold, that was a normal pattern and for which they or society could have protected them from, offsets those who died from the heat, that wasn't part of normal expectations? I think we will have to prepare ourselves for a lot of this kind of rationalizing. The heat wave was the most severe that Paris had ever experienced since records began. The fact that the nighttime temperatures were particularly elevated, a pattern predicted by GW projections, mades it reasonable to conclude that GW contributed to it.
Anyway, I only raised this as an example of probable current deaths from the .7 C rise we have so far experienced. I could just as easily used the detectable increases in infectious diseases.
You ignored the thrust of my argument but then, according to you, the possibility of these deaths shouldn't be considered until they occur. By the same logic, the possibility of a major terrorist attack shouldn't have been considered until after 9/11.
Despite my fears of the consequences of GW I have remained relatively modest in my recommendations on actions because I continue to recognize some uncertainty. I have also tried to balance it against other risks.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 19 2005, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 19 2005, 12:53 PM)
Why should we fear the effects of global warming any more than the effects of terrorism? Are you not in a state of alarm due to the thought of global warming? Are you acting rationally or irrationally to something that has not even been proven to be true? How about we take a page out of your book of logic?
Fear has nothing to do with it; it's just rational calculation. The numbers suggest that we will lose a lot of money if we don't do anything to address global warming. If we invest some money now in slowing it down, we could well reduce future losses by far more than present costs. Of course, we have to make the right investments, and we have to balance the amount invested against the likely magnitude of damage. But in the end, it's a matter for rationalism, not emotionalism.
It may be rational to you...but it is irrational to me. Global Warming is a farce to me. Something made up. Yes, humans may have some impact on the environment in some areas...but to say that some excess gases in the period from the Industrial Revolution to now will ultimately affect the entire planet is in my opinion ridiculous. We are basing our models on only like a century of scientific data. Earth is billions of years old. So what may seem like a rational decision to you is completely ridiculous to me. I mean call me crazy if i am a bit more 'fearful' of a suicide bomber than I am of the ocean rising 1 or 2 inches every century.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 19 2005, 06:33 PM)
It may be rational to you...but it is irrational to me. Global Warming is a farce to me. Something made up. Yes, humans may have some impact on the environment in some areas...but to say that some excess gases in the period from the Industrial Revolution to now will ultimately affect the entire planet is in my opinion ridiculous. We are basing our models on only like a century of scientific data. Earth is billions of years old. So what may seem like a rational decision to you is completely ridiculous to me. I mean call me crazy if i am a bit more 'fearful' of a suicide bomber than I am of the ocean rising 1 or 2 inches every century.
With all due respect, how can you have an opinion on the subject of which you know absolutely nothing about? (Same applies to me, by the way, so I mean no offense). Neither of us have any degrees in oceanology, glaciology, or any related discipline; neither of us can even be called an amateur since, most likely, our knowledge on the subject is limited to a few articles here and there.
And yet, here we are, disputing the opinion of overwhelming majority of scientists from different countries who spent years studying the subject. Your argument? "It just couldn't be!" Reminds me of times during 1930s when genetics was considered a "pseudo-science"...
By the way, an ocean rising a few inches every century will cause far more damage than suicide bombers. Of course, the damage will affect our descendants and not us... so let them deal with it.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Jul 20 2005, 09:22 AM)
Reminds me of times during 1930s when genetics was considered a "pseudo-science"...
By the way, an ocean rising a few inches every century will cause far more damage than suicide bombers. Of course, the damage will affect our descendants and not us... so let them deal with it.
By the way, an ocean rising a few inches every century will cause far more damage than suicide bombers. Of course, the damage will affect our descendants and not us... so let them deal with it.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Thomas Malthus said the world would starve to death but he could not see the technological changes ahead. His prophecy of doom still influenced England to make law based on his findings. Ultimately, the laws did not help a thing. If GW does indeed become a problem, I am sure humans will figure something out. What bothers me about GW is it takes so much attention away from true environmental issues. Most environmental issues take place on a micro level. For example, Red Tide in Florida and in the North East is problem that needs adequate research, but many environmentalists have their resources tied up in the GW debate.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 19 2005, 04:33 PM)
It may be rational to you...but it is irrational to me. Global Warming is a farce to me. Something made up. Yes, humans may have some impact on the environment in some areas...but to say that some excess gases in the period from the Industrial Revolution to now will ultimately affect the entire planet is in my opinion ridiculous. We are basing our models on only like a century of scientific data. Earth is billions of years old. So what may seem like a rational decision to you is completely ridiculous to me. I mean call me crazy if i am a bit more 'fearful' of a suicide bomber than I am of the ocean rising 1 or 2 inches every century.
"This nuclear physics stuff may seem fine to you... but it is irrational to me. Nuclear physics is a farce to me. Something made up. Yes, atoms may contain some energy, we already know that they can burn. But to say that a few pounds of uranium atoms contain enough energy to wipe out a city is in my opinion ridiculous. We are basing our models on only like ten years of scientific research. Earth is billions of years old. So what may seem like a rational decision to you is completely ridiculous to me. I mean call me crazy if I am a bit more fearful of a regular bomb than I am of some hair-brained atomic bomb."
Hypothetical Japanese citizen, Hiroshima, August 6th, 1945, 9:00 AM
QUOTE(nemov)
If GW does indeed become a problem, I am sure humans will figure something out.
While we're at it, why don't we just "figure something out" to solve AIDS, poverty, war, and terrorism? Sounds easy enough to me!
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 20 2005, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE(nemov)
If GW does indeed become a problem, I am sure humans will figure something out.
While we're at it, why don't we just "figure something out" to solve AIDS, poverty, war, and terrorism? Sounds easy enough to me!
Off topic but I'll answer this. Why do people assume that progress is not happening. Are we such a cynical and negative society that we do not realize on average the living standards of the world are rising? Yet people continue to say things are getting worse. Even you would admit much progress has been made on the AIDS front in the US. It used to be an automatic death sentence. The number of Americans living in poverty in 1950 was 22% it is now 12%. There are problems in the world, but things are not so gloomy. TB, small pox, polio were all problem in the US that we overcame. Is that progress? Most of the developed world has overcome these problems as well. Becoming a “developed state” does not happen overnight.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.