Where is the evidence that there is less plant life in 2005 than there was in say 1805? We've cut down forests but they've grown back. I'd be surprised if the percentage of photosynthesis capable plants now is much different than it was 200 years ago.

If you can post evidence to the contrary, do so. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

Secondly, you stated that man has destroyed the ozone layer. How do you conclude that? The ozone layer is something man could not even SEE until satellite imagery (first available in the 1960's) allowed man to see it. How can we say we destroyed that layer when we had no way of measuring it in 1805, 1705 or 500 BC? How do we know that natural phenomena doesn't explain the fluctuations in something that we don't understand and can only recently measure at all?

Man did not kill of the dinosaurs. Nature did. Man did not cause the massive global warming that turned out planet from an ice covered cooler to the current status in only 10,000 short years. Nature did.

Now, we're being told that man is dramatically changing something that changed DRAMATICALLY, many times, before the first man even walked this earth.

Such extreme claims require proof. Please provide some.

I'm sorry but that isn't how it works, what I am talking about is generally accepted scientific fact. In fact, you can look it up in any high school science book. Your claim is the extreme one.

And I was talking about 2005 as compared to 10,000 years ago lordhelmet. I would think even you wouldn't question that. In fact, go pick up an 8th grade history book and see what it says about pioneers clearing the forests.


yes dramatically, and you keep ignoring the HUGE variable that is important here - Industry. To prove exactly what I just said, here is a graph that shows Trends in Atmospheric Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of Carbon Dioxide and this is a government website.

Take a look at the first graph there, dramatic enough for you? Given that this is a government agency and the Bush administration is in power I'd think this would be understating things rather than overstating them.

But, without that CO2 produced by those "new elements" we would not be able to populate this planet. CO2 is necessary to sustain our life. Otherwise, this earth would be inhospitably cold for humans and other non-aquatic warm-blooded species.



The ozone layer is a completely different subject than greenhouse gases. Ice crystals in stratospheric clouds over the south pole provide a surface on which certain chemical reactions occured that normally would not. On the surface of ice crystals, hydrogen chloride and chlorine nitrate react with each other, creating ozone destroying chemicals and the hole in the ozone layer over the south pole. Chloroflourocarbons recycle. CO2 is an inert gas. Again, the two are unrelated and chloroflourocarbons are illegal in first world countries (manybe third world also, I'm not familiar with international environmental laws) today.

Yes, I agree. Greenhouse gases trap heat. Otherwise, the planet would be inhospitable to humanity. The real question is, does the impact of humans burning squashed old dinosaurs (oil and gas) and plants (coal) impact the global temperature? It might.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that man has had absolutely no impact on the environment. However, statements that that mankind has 'destroyed the ozone layer' are fallacious. The ozone layer is still up there. What natural force is going to "rebuild the ozone"? The same one that created it in the first place. The sun continuously produces the ozone layer. No need to rebuild it. Regarding the paper milling aspects of your post, today those mills grow their own soft wood trees. They don't raze the environment to do so. IOW they cut what they grow. There is little environmental impact from the US paper and softwood industry.

I know they aren't necessarily related. I was using it to prove a point. Lordhelmet was basically suggesting that mere humans could never have an impact on the environment that would have the magnitude of say a volcanic eruption. This little finding proves that we do because these chemicals wouldn't even be up there if we hadn't manufactured them.

That was absolutely not what I am suggesting. What I am asserting is that the science related to the climate is very much in its infancy and that the hysterical and inflammatory predictions surrounding the global warming theory (presented as fact) are unsubstantiated by the evidence.

But don't listen to me. Read the transcripts from a number of experts in the field who spoke at this conference.

http://www.ncpa.org/press/transcript/globalwm/global3.html

Not to forget also that CO2 is used by plants through photosynthesis to create sugar and their own very cells! In their turn, they are food to animals... and eventually us. Therefore without CO2, life would simply NOT exist.

It is unfortunate that there are no studies available about the evolution of the atmosphere's components over a large period of time worldwide. We can't conclude on our actual impact on the environment with accurate, absolute comparison.

It would be interesting to see how 'minor' component concentrations have evolved, like dioxin for instance. We need to rely markers of the human activities instead of gases that were naturally present before mankind appeared.

This thread seems to revolve in a circle with those convinced that global warming is real and serious presenting their case while those convinced that such evidence is not strong claiming we should do nothing. Perhaps we should concentrate on finding out if there is anything we could agree on about actions that might be reasonable to take now even for those who are unconvinced that climate change is a huge threat. To do this, I propose we look at steps we could take that would reduce (or at least reduce the rate of increase in) the release of greenhouse gases that make sense for other reasons. I will propose some possible areas to discuss.

1. Coal burning in power plants is one of the major contributors to the release of mercury into the environment. Mercury is so wide spread in the environment that warning are routinely issued for pregnant mothers and young children to avoid eating much tuna (and other fish at the top of the food chain). Although the release of other pollutants have been much reduced though regulation, coal burning still remains a major contributor of these. Does it not make sense then, to burn as little coal as we can to meet our economic needs. After the energy crises of the late 70s, we found ways to reduce electricity consumption without harming our economy. Motors were made more efficient, lighting efficiencies were improved, chemical piping was improved, etc., etc. We are at least twice as efficient in the use of electricity per unit of GDP as we were at the beginning of this cycle. There are still tremendous opportunities left to improve end use efficiency in the use of electricity at less cost than adding capacity. Shouldn't we encourage the investment in these opportunities with leadership and government policy. If we are successful, we would limit the number of new coal fired power plants? This, in turn, would prevent significant pollution and at the same time make an initial contribution to prevention the release of greenhouse gases.

2. Over half of U.S. oil is imported. We have a very serious balance of payment problem of long duration resulting in countries like Japan and China holding tremendous quantities of dollars. This situation could result in a run on the dollar and an economic panic. A major portion of our trade imbalance is oil. Oil's contribution to our payments balance has increased significantly with the run up in oil prices. There are many things we could do to reduce our oil use. Extending CAFE standards to SUVs and light trucks is one such step. Tax incentives for the purchase of hybrid and other efficient vehicles is another. The Rocky Mountain Institute thinks we could go well beyond these steps to the point where we could provide, for what are now our oil import needs, with biomass. RMI Study Again, we would achieve 2 important social goals - a reduction in our balance of payments problem and a reduction in the release of greenhouse gases.

3. In the 50s, L. King Hubbard predicted that the peak in U.S. oil production would occur in 1972. It happened in the 1972-74 period. Many prominent geologist using his methods are predicting that the peak of world oil production is approaching. Some say it is with us now. Some industry analysts say it may not happen for 10 or 20 years or even 30 years. At the same time, world oil demand is growing by leaps and bounds as China and India industrialize and the U.S., European, and Japanese economies recover. If a peak production occurs with rising demand, world economic chaos may ensue. However, if it occurs with declining demand, as the RMI study proposes, the impact need not be severe. Isn't this another good reason to begin now to reduce our use of oil by promoting better end use efficiencies and alternative fuel while, at the same time reducing the release of greenhouse gases.

4. Most of the remaining world oil reserves are in the Middle East or Caspian Sea area. Exclusive of Iraq, which may or may not be an oil war, we spent about $50 billion per year on military deplored to this region, primarily to ensure the free flow of oil. Our involvement also forces us into relationships with all kinds of unsavory regimes. In fact our presence in Saudi Arabia propping up the Saudi royal family was one of the principle reasons that al Qaeda attacked us. Isn't this another good reason to seriously tackle reducing our need for oil?

To reiterate my primary point, I believe that the science of meteorology and "atmospheric science" is in it's infancy at worst and in "toddler" status at best. I believe that our understanding of the very complex system that governs our planet's ecosystem is very shallow. I think that even the most sophisticated computer models available today ignore many of the factors that impact the climate. The interaction of our atmosphere with the earth (which is dynamic and filled with molten material), the oceans (which have their own "weather systems"), the outside void (and the impact of the sun and other extraterrestrial factors), plant life, animal life, and yes, the action of humans.. is largely NOT understood. A simplistic approach which hypothesizes that man has created more CO2 and then correlates that OBSERVATION with another short-term observation that the temperature has risen (in some locations, while not in others) is being bandied about as "PROOF" while reasonable people who call this approach into question are labeled "industry dupes", "fringe thinkers" or otherwise demonized.

I have said from the beginning of this thread that it's absurd to believe scientists who are making extravagant claims about what the climate will be like in 50 years when they can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow.

Well, it took 10 days, but here is a snapshot of the short-term accuracy of our best atmospheric scientists, using the latest and greatest climate predicting computer models that are being fed with extensive observations including temperature, wind direction and velocity, air pressure readings, humidity readings, satellite imagery, etc.....

Start Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI USA
Source: NOAA

Comparing predicted hi temperature and weather conditions with actual.

Date..............Pred. Hi (deg)........Actual Hi..........Pred. Weather............Actual

3-4-05................34........................33................Part. Cloudy.............Part. Cloudy
3-5-05................35........................39...................Snow...........
............Sunny
3-6-05................35........................46...................Snow...........
............Sunny
3-7-05................37........................51...................Snow...........
.........Part. Cloudy
3-8-05................27........................25...................Snow...........
............Sunny
3-9-05................27........................26...................Snow...........
............Sunny
3-10-05..............22........................31....................Snow............
...........Snow
3-11-05..............30........................33................Most. Cloudy...............Sunny
3-12-05..............33........................31................Most. Cloudy...............Sunny
3-13-05..............35........................30................Most. Cloudy...........Part. Cloudy


Let's look at the results of this sophisticated computer modeling and how it related to the actual reality. Well, the model worked pretty well for about 24 hours, but then it went off the rails in a big way. A major warming spell (and a very nice weekend) was completely missed by the computer models just a few days out.

These predictions missed the temperatures, the trends, and the overall weather conditions. In fact, the predictions look no better than a random pick at this point in the year.

If we look at average temperature predicted vs. actual averages.

Predicted ave: 31.5 deg
Actual ave: 34.5 deg

Error: 3 degrees

Worst case daily error: 14 degrees
Ave daily error: 5.2 degrees

Certainly a person with the "Old Farmer's Almanac" and some logical guesses could come up with a 10 day forecast that is as accurate as the one resulting from "sophisticated computer modeling". Having an average daily error of over 5 degrees and a worst case miss of 14 degrees during the first half of a 10 day forecast is not a good record.

So, lets refer back to the proven accuracy of these atmospheric scientists, given all the tools at their disposal, before granting them "proof" status when it comes to their alarmist predictions with respect to the overall global climate.

Let's face it. They just don't understand what they are talking about yet to the level required to make such predictions.

Lordhelmet, your insistence on unequivocal proof is, in itself, admirably scientific.

However, you seem determined to deny that anthorpogenic global warming could at least in theory, be a possibility, or that the worst-case scenarios could, at least in theory, be true.

Permit me to bat this back at you and ask you to outline the kind of evidence you would expect to see that might convince you that anthropogenesis is a major, or perhaps the major cause of the current trend in global warming, and also what evidence would convince you that the current trend is likely to result in major envionmental change leading to deleterious effects on current human societies.

You challenge pro-anthropogeneticists to come up with convincing evidence for their theory before you will support the preventive actions they propose. That's admirably scientific.

Yet you choose another theory - that climate change isn't happening, and that even if it is, it is happening for reaons outside man's awareness or control.

As you will be aware, any scientific theory has to be falsifiable to qualify as a valid theory to qualify as valid science, even if it cannot be proven. It has to be possible to imagine evidence that could disprove your theory.

I am not a proponent of anthropogenesis, but I can imagine that if the climate suddenly began to cool despite increasing CO2 and CH4 levels, or if a sudden, massive and naturally-occurring CO2 or CH4 emission took place with no measurable effect on climate, anthropogenesis proponents would have to rethink. Neither of these scenarios would require damage to society. Neither are especially hard to envisage. But both would blow current theories of man-made global warming out of the water.

So, short of the nightmare scenario of uncontrolled global warming turning the planet into a copy of Venus, and you and an anthropogeneticist somehow surviving for them to tell you "I told you so", what evidence would convince you that you are wrong and they are right?

This is the basis of my argument, expressed several times. If we wait to have uncontrovertible proof that we have changed the climate to damaging effect, we will in reality have to wait until the damage has happened. By which time it may well be beyond our abilities to change before becoming extinct. It will be a scant consolation to anyone to know for sure that the anthropogenetics proponents were right after all, and a switch away from petrochemical combustion in the early 21st century could have prevented all this. Least of all to them.

This is like ignoring someone who tells you not to wave your loaded gun around because you will not accept their theory that cerebral bullet wounds are dangerous to YOUR life. You might very well have died at that precise moment by causes unrelated to the loss of brain tissue, blood, and cerebro-spinal fluid caused by the trauma.

At least, you might tell yourself that, in the few seconds before your scepticism became terminal.

Could you first explain what you mean by anthro, antho, uh., anthropogeneticist and how that has anything to do with the fact that the best available climate forecasting can't tell me within +/- 15 degrees what the temperature will be 10 days from now?

This is at its heart a disingenuous statement, and you know it. Climatology and Meteorology are different scientific fields; which again you probably already know. The reason why forecasters (who are not really scientists anyways) can't predict the weather is because of the MASSIVE bodies of variables present which make accurate predictions almost impossible. When you are studying the models used however, as opposed to specific elements within that model, you employ entirely different science. Let me try and come up with a good parable...

Take a pool table. The balls are set up in a triangle and you are waiting for the break...

Climatology relates to the physics involved in the interaction between all the balls on the table. It's incredibly complex and precise, and does have a certain predictive value. If I hit the queue ball from a certain spot, in a certain direction, at a certain speed, I know it will go into the pocket and I will lose the game. (This happens more than I would like.)

Meteorology, on the other hand, is like watching one particularly small spot on the table, and trying to predict, before the shot takes place, which balls are going to do what in that area; WITHOUT looking at the shot being lined up or where the balls outside that area are sitting.

Without the pool table and the balls, there is no game of pool. Without an understanding of the physics involved in that game, the player has little chance of understanding what will happen when a ball is struck with another ball.

Without an understanding of the weather, there is no understanding of the climate.

If they cannot get the little details right, they have little hope of understanding the "big picture".

Our government spends BILLIONS on tools, research, and technology to forecast the weather. Yet, we've only scratched the surface. My expose post shows that even short-term forecasts are all wet (no pun intended). Yet, you would THINK that these people would have some idea what will happen 4 days from today given all those computer models and technology, right?

Yet, this meager understanding is EXTRAPOLATED by atmospheric scientists to pretend to be able to predict the nature of a complex system that is almost completely not understood.

Simple logic destroys the entire premise of man-caused "global warming".

Based on man's understanding of the climate, it is EQUALLY LIKEY that the earth may continue to heat up or that it may start to cool down.

We just do not know.

That's an interesting brand of pseudo-science you're employing there, but it is NOT logic.



When you heat popcorn, the water inside each kernel agitates, causing the kernel to expand and burst through it's skin. This is a simple scientific principle; it does not tell us which kernels are going to expand and 'pop' first because the variables involved are too small to measure practically. Does this mean that the scientific principles of physics are fundamentally flawed or insufficient? Of course not... that is unless we follow your logic.

You seem to be working under some strange conception of science where each 'branch' of scientific inquiry is detached and completely seperate. This is of course false. Physics tells us what happens when water is heated. That understanding makes up a part of climatological study. The physics of the climatology are the same as the 'physics' of any other scientific study. The difficulty lies in generating a model that is thorough enough that those physics can be applied accurately to understand the entire system.

Obviously, the model is NOT complete, but you are approaching the study of climatology backwards. Just because you resent inaccurate weather forecasting (and I can assure you you're not the only one) does not mean that an entire branch of science is fundamentally flawed.



I don't get this at all. Doctors have a pretty darn good idea of how the human body works, but as with climatology the model is 'incomplete.' In spite of our best scientific efforts, doctos can't tell me with absolute accuracy what will happen if I eat that furry looking lemon-type fruit sitting in the bottom of my vegetable crisper. What they CAN tell me is that nine times out of ten I will probably 'turn green' and develop some sort of gastro-intestinal distress shortly thereafter.

Yet, using your logic, our understanding of the human body is incomplete and therefore useless? That's quite the bold leap.

Anthropogenetic global warming is the theory you find so hard to credit - the idea that man (anthropos) creates (genesis) global warming.

An anthropogeneticist is therefore shorthand for "someone who proposes the theory that global warming is not only occurring, but caused by the so-called greenhouse effect though to be caused by the gases methane, carbon dioxide and water vapour, which in turn is, wholly or in major part, caused by the release of these gases by human industrial and agricultural activity, including large scale burning of fossil fuels".

So now you know.

Now, can you tell me what the "fact" that the best available climate forecasting can't tell me within +/- 15 degrees what the temperature will be 10 days from now has to do with your own debate question:

Is the phenemena known as 'global warming' the result of man or is man's impact of far less importance than the normal dynamics of the planet?

"Anthropogenesis" in this context is the idea that global warming is man's fault.

Actually you are wrong, there was an article just published in the Guardian about Mt. Kilamanjaro which has not been without snow on its peak for 11,000 years - story. There is an image here

I'd like to call your attention to the bolded section there, scientists predicted this 15 years ago.

Furthermore, there was a convincing study published in the Economist a few weeks ago that takes a different tack on this. The scientist here believes that we should be looking at the sea, not the atmosphere.

Feel free to read the rest of the article or check out the information on their website. You can also view this graph of ocean temperatures from their research.

It is very debatable if global warming is a true trend, you see the last few days we have had a heat index of 95F here and I would have to say that is pretty warm, darn the leaves are falling off the tree in my back yard and my neighbor sold all of his cows because of the hot dry spell. Yet my friend from MA writes “This reminded me of some old threads on fieldherpers.com on environmental alarmists and global cooling. When the NY Times and their editorialists (whom I would have a hard time even categorizing as Americans) start agreeing with me that environmental alarmists are harming the conservation movement politically then the other side is running out of allies.”

I Have a Nightmare
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Published: March 12, 2005



And then he sends me a picture of his warming problem http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/data/118731205snowday.JPG I tell him he should put a beach ball in the picture to take advantage of the color print. Personally, I installed an industrial squirrel cage fan in my house to exhaust the hot air today so I’m leaning global warming.

You have unintentionally made my point. Yes, most of these scientists are looking at the atmosphere, NOT the oceans. My POINT is that the earth is primarily covered with water and that they have to look at BOTH and also what is outside of our atmosphere (the sun, etc.) in order to understand how it all works as a SYSTEM.

Without understanding how it all works together and what the natural dynamics of the SYSTEM are, how in the world can anyone pretend to KNOW that man is causng the earth to warm up??

That's absurd. Looking at a few variables in a very complex and non-understood system and then pretending to be able to predict what the future brings is absurd. It's arrogant. And, it's politically motivated.

Ocean temperatures? Well, that might mean something and it might not. How do current temperature readings made in the ocean compare with those 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc? Oh, we don't have those. Sorry.

As my example pointed out clearly, all these scientists can do is GUESS. And, they can OBSERVE. Oh, they claim to be able to predict. But, they are equally likely to be wrong as to be right.

You make your point well, but dismiss any that anyone else makes.

If, as you say, the scientists proposing global warming is both real and man-made - who are mostly distinct from the environmental activists in that they are NOT claiming to "KNOW" that man is causing the earth to warm up - are either right or they are wrong with equal likelihood - what makes you so certain that their 50:50 guess is WRONG?

If it is truly a 50:50 guess, as you say, then they are just as likely to be RIGHT as they are to be WRONG, are they not?

Then, since the cost of them being RIGHT (possible collapse of civlisiation itself or even total extinction) outweighs the cost of them being WRONG (possible collapse of the US economy until we realise they are WRONG and change back to using fossil fuels with impunity as we do now), the risk of heads far outweighs the risk of tails. Doesn't it?

So hadn't we better start behaving as if we expect the coin to turn up heads, even if we don't really? (This is what I've been trying to say all thread, as I'm sure you're aware.)

The ONLY way anthropogeneticists (now you know what the word means, I can use it with impunity. Yay!) can prove themselves right to you will be if the doomsday scenario comes true in your lifetime, and even then I bet you'd argue that it had nothing to do with fossil fuels and was caused by something else.

If some new development happens that enables weather forecasters to accurately predict the weather in your home town 15 days or even 15 months from now, would you accept their predictions on global climate 15 or 50 years from now, or decide that would be a different and unproven model that should be ignored?

Your ideas do not seem to be not falsifiable - everything you have said indicates that nobody can conceivably prove you wrong. That may mean you are right, but it definitely means your ideas are not scientific.

I can only assume that your demand for cast-iron proof of anthropogenesis before any change is made to energy use is based on something other than a rational calculation?

I didn't say that it's a 50:50 possibility that man could be warming the earth therefore the points you have made subsequently are not valid.

What I said is that it is "equally likely" that the earth could heat up in the future, or that it could cool down..... all by itself.

Since we do not understand the mechanics behind the SYSTEM of change, what the atmospheric people are doing, under the guise of "science" is nothing more than W.A.G. or Wild A. Guessing.

The earth has gone through DRAMATIC climate changes throughout it's history. It has oscillated between a tropical rainforest and an ice covered freeze box..... all before man even entered the scene.

The study of the earth's history has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any question of scientific proof, that the earth's system is extremely DYNAMIC and that it will change on it's own; often in very dramatic ways, with or without man spending their valuable time and energy worrying about it.

Frankly, the science of global warming and the theory that man is causing it is nothing more than hot air with zero scientific basis to back it up.

If the "doomsday" scenario comes in my lifetime, it will come independent of the action of man. Our species will die out eventually just like the dinosaurs did. And like the dinosaurs, we will have zero say over the climate of this earth.

If anyone has any valid evidence to prove me wrong, please post it. Pointing to simple observations (temperature, the appearance of a ice patch) doesn't hack it for me unless one can PROVE that those dynamic changes would not have occurred through man's action. The state of the art in "atmospheric" science is laughably simplistic. When you cut through the 5 dollar words like anthropogeneticists, and the fancy looking graphs, 3D models, pie charts, etc..... one is left, unfortunately, with a lot of data with no comprehensive system model that ties it all together.

Like I said earlier, when these people can tell me with relative accuracy what the weather will be like next Tuesday, perhaps I give them more of my time when they start fear mongering about "doomsday scenarios" and the like.

You ignored my major point which was that there are many good reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels besides climate change. These include the inevitability that we will reach an oil peak and a bidding war will ensue absent alternatives that reduce the demand for oil. They also include the contribution that fossil fuels make to other major environmental problems like mercury. The contribution that reduced oil imports would make to the balance of current accounts crises is also worthy of consideration as is the contribution such a reduction would make to national security. How about it? Can't you at least concede that we should begin serious efforts to promote energy end use efficiency and renewable energy alternatives even if you reject the evidence for climate change. You can even throw in a discussion of nuclear fission, if you like.

As for your example of failures to predict short term local weather events, this is a problem that all macro system models share. The fact that an econometric model of the national economy can't predict whether a particular stock will perform well or whether my neighbor will have a job isn't an argument for throwing out economic models as predictors of aggregate economic outcomes. All kinds of local circumstances that aren't part of macro climate models influence local weather forecasting. This is extremely evident in my location in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless, the long term forecasts of wetter and dryer and warmer and colder seasons are increasingly reliable because local influences average out. This is even more true in global warming models where gross outcomes are the object of prediction, not whether its going to rain in Seattle tomorrow.

Well, this thread isn't about the issue of dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise. It's about whether the current fashionable theory that "man is causing global warming" is real science or is absolute hokum (as I maintain).

Macro models are all based on a comprehensive understanding of how a SYSTEM works. The stock market is simple compared to the largely non-understood global climate system.

The same sensor technology that is driving the "micro forecasts" are being extrapolated to generate the "macro" models of the climate. Yet, they ignore the role of the oceans (the majority of the earth) and the impact of the sun?

Our single minded focus on "greenhouse gasses" has blinded our scientists to possibilities that are beyond their pre-conceived notions.

Personally, I find that dangerous. Why don't you?

Well the problem Lord Helmet is that nothing seems to be good enough for you and as far as I'm concerned you can go on believing that global warming is something made up by scientists and liberals as some grand conspiracy.

If you are looking for some model out there that is going to predict that the temperature of the earth will rise by X degrees by the next 30 years and then in Y year the world will be so hot we won't be able to live here, you won't find that. The science is not mature enough to make detailed predictions like that and furthermore no one is claiming that it is, or should be except perhaps you...

There however is plenty of evidence that some of the warming patterns we are seeing are outside the range of natural variance. There has been plenty of evidence presented to that effect. Furthermore, if you know anything about the systems that regulate life and climate on the earth and realize that they are systems and must stay in balance to keep working, that alone would be enough to prove man is having an impact on the planet. Man wasn't imbalancing those systems in the middle ages, man has only been unbalancing them in the last few hundred years since the dawn of the industrial age. I cited plenty of evidence and common sense a few posts ago on that. Again none of this will predict that the world is going to end on Y date.

You haven't done anything this entire thread except ask people to present evidence and rhetorical arguments only to say, no I don't believe that, without actually refuting it. You have proceeded to misdirect the discussion by comparing the study of global warming to meteorology of all things which is a completely bogus analogy as Ultimate Joe demonstrated.

The evidence we do have suggests a few things:
1) We don't know enough and we need to know more (just like virtually every other scientific topic out there)
2) We do know enough that decision makers need to start paying attention here and we need to change how we do things.

Your assertion that man has done absolutely nothing to influence the climate since the beginning of the industrial age a few hundred years ago is completely ridiculous and defies all logic. Without any sort of predictive science, simple scientific concepts and common sense dictate we are unbalancing the systems which regulate life and climate on our planet.

I personally think that your rejection of these theories and the evidence we have has very little to do with science and a whole lot to do with politics.

Oh really? No one is predicting such things?

Dire global warming predictions





The UN experts chime in:


There are indeed dire predictions of exact temperature rises in precise time frames.

The problem with most of the dire predictions is that they ignore some very significant factors. The Earth is in a constant state of balance. When an external force (let's say greenhouse gases) act on the Earth, the earth compensates. In the case of rising temperatures, snow melts which creates clouds which reflect incoming radiation from space. This process, also poorly understood, is not properly accounted for in global predictions.

One problem I have with the dire predictions is the failure of these models to predict past events. For example, the Nature article referenced earlier predicts: "The greenhouse effect could be far more severe than experts had previously predicted, according to results from the world's biggest climate-modelling study. In the worst-case scenario, doubling carbon-dioxide levels compared with pre-industrial times increases global temperatures by an average of more than 11 ºC." The study says that the average of the results predicted a 3.4ºC temperature rise with a doubling of the carbon dioxide level (from pre-industrial levels).

Why, then, does a rise in carbon dioxide levels by over 50% not account for a global temperature rise of more than 0.5 ºC?

Global warming predicts a dramatic rise in global ocean levels. Why haven't the data proven out this, given the already observable rise in temperatures? Sea level rise estimate halved by tide gauge study



Cube Jockey earlier mentioned the snows of Kilimanjaro. Consider this: Selling Climate Calamity



The Kilimanjaro example is why anecdotal evidence is fairly useless in a discussion such as this one.

The jury is certainly still out on global warming: what's causing it, what can be done about it, and even whether or not it is a bad thing.

Because it simply is not true. I've followed the global warming investigation since the early 80s and know how careful and responsible climate scientists have been in drawing conclusions. Every serious issue that is brought up by skeptics has been investigated. The oceans most certainly haven't been neglected. They are a major part of climate models. Local weather models are not just extrapolated into macro models. Local prediction models depend on observed high and low pressure systems, generated wind directions, and their likely movement up over and around local terrain. The models that are run on super fast computers to predict long term general temperature include changes in various gas concentrations in the atmosphere, the generation of clouds, the reflectivity of clouds of different types, changes in ocean temperature and evaporation, changes in the reflectivity of open water vs. ice, the cooling effect of aeorsoles like SO2, the effects of black carbon, and much much more. Certainly there are still uncertainties but more in how much effect we are having and will have rather than whether we are having a serious effect. As for the solar cycle, slight changes in the earths orbit, changes in the angle of the earths axis to its orbit and the like; it is my understanding that taken together they would be producing a net cooling, not a warming.

My attempt to bring up other arguments for reducing fossil fuel use was designed to see if you and others like you could be persuaded to support initial solutions because they make sense for other reasons. After all, that is the real purpose in engaging in such discussions, making the right policy decisions more likely.

So Amlord, your whole post is based on the fact that people are predicting exact changes in the atmosphere.

Hey, there is a guy that walks around on the streets near my office who comes by with a sandwich board sign and predicts the end of the world this year. I'm betting it is just because he didn't get his methadone that week, but by your logic we should all start getting ready huh?

The real science here is about understanding what is going on around us and the impact we are having on our planet, it isn't about making doomsday predictions and if you wanted to I'm sure that google could return plenty of results for you there.

The real science along with common sense suggests that since the beginning of the industrial age we have:
1) pumped TONS of chemicals into the air, water and soil - many of which didn't exist naturally before
2) rapidly expanded in population changing and sometimes destroying whole ecosystems
3) cleared and destroyed whole sections of forests and vegetation in the name of farming, lumber and progress.

All of the above represent fundamental changes to the systems which regulate temperature and life on this planet and if you throw one out of balance significantly, the system can't recover - that is pretty simple stuff and proven on a small scale.

So if you can look at all that and say that man hasn't had an effect on the planet then I think you are kidding yourself. At the same time, there is no reason to seek out doomsday scientists either, the answer is somewhere in between.

The middle ground I think is that yes we are causing warming as well as other environmental damage with our actions and no that won't effect us in our life times or porbably our children's lifetimes. However, we have the opportunity to do something about it right now and if we don't we virtually assure the fate of future generations.

I guess you missed the links of the guys published in scientific journals who are predicting exactly what you said no one was predicting...namely that the temperature is going to rise dramatically in the next few decades and that millions of species will be extinct as a result. This study appeared in the peer-reviewed magazine Nature, not some "doomsday" rag.

NPG Journals


I guess you can ignore why they can predict such things (in a peer-reviewed journal) as a 3 (or 5, or 11) degree temperature rise, but fail the sniff test since the observed temperature increases over the last hundred years do not correlate with the predictions they are making for the next hundred years.

I guess you can continue to observe "Hey, the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting" and use that as evidence but neglect the fact that the snows existed when temperatures were much higher thousands of years ago and that the amount of snow cap loss has actually decreased over the past decade or so.

I'm sorry, but that isn't evidence that the predictions are accurate. There are serious flaws in the methods used to predict future climate (I will agree with you that weather "forecasting" and climate predictions are distinctly different fields).

Computer models with flawed assumptions are not useful, whatever they predict. Computer models which cannot predict past (measured) behavior absolutely cannot be used to predict future (unknown) behavior.

I am not saying that temperature rise is not happening. It is. I am not saying that humans have not contributed to it. They have (to some extent). What I am saying is that we do not know the extent to which we are contributing and we do not even know whether or not some degree of global warming is a good thing. The jury is still out and until we come up with a model that predicts the observed history of the past 100 years, I will not put my faith in that model predicting what's going to happen in the next 100 years.

Here is a discussion of climate change modeling from 2001 that hits on some of the points raised in this discussion:


Modelling Discussion

I think some of the confusion in the above discussion relates to some of the early models that didn't take account of SO2 and other pollutants. SO2 have a counter forcing effect, therefore, the models run on the last 100 years predicted more temperature change than surface monitoring indicated. When Sulfur Dioxide and other pollutants were incorporated results of the modelling were in much better agreement with historical temperature records. SO2 is a serious pollutant and a major contributor to acid rain so there have been great efforts to reduce its release. In any case, it precipitates out of the atmosphere in a few years while CO2 takes at least 100 years.

The issue of cloud feedbacks alluded to above accounts for the major differences in the predictions of the various model. Whether cloud increases as a result of temperature increases will have a negative or a positive feedback on temperature increases is an issue that has been around since 1991. Richard Lindsen of MIT in his "adaptive iris" theory proposed that it would be negative and reduce the forcing of increased levels of greenhouse gases. It is my understanding that the NASA Goddard Institute study had come down on the side of a net positive feedback from increased cloud cover. (This investigation in itself should prove that climate change scientists take honest skeptics seriously). For those wishing a full discussion of the cloud issue, see the following.Goddard Abstract

Good explanation, TedN5. However, you left off the concluding paragraph from your link on global modelling:


(emphasis in original).

Any impact studies (i.e. predicting the actual effect that temperature change will have) must be viewed with caution. We simply do not know what will happen, even if we could predict with certainty the exact amount of temperature increase.

And I'm going to state once again Amlord that knowing the exact temperature increase on a yearly basis is not what we should be focusing on, nor is it particularly important.

What is clear from all of these studies is that the trend seems to be pointing towards an increase. The factors cited causing this are things that we have the power to correct.

We don't know enough to predict with certainty the increase on a year by year basis and you can parade any number of studies around saying we do, it isn't valid science. We do know enough to know that we have a problem and what the causes of it are. Understanding the causes is far more important than being able to make some doomsday prediction.

It's a good thing that I am not focused on exact temperature rises then...

What we do not know with any amount of certainty is whether or not global climate changes are good or bad. Thirty years ago, the climate trends indicated a global cooling pattern. Today, it is warming.

There is certainly data that says global temperatures are rising. No arguments there. What there isn't much of, is a thorough assessment of how that will impact such things as farming patterns, water table levels, local ecologies, etc.

There is a trend. OK, what does that mean? Longer growing seasons or rampant flooding? No one knows with any amount of certainty, which is my point.

I have always emphasized that there are uncertainties. However, the fact that GMCs all predict a serious temperature increase is cause for concern. A 3 degree F change would cause very serious changes. An 8 degree change would be catastrophic. Viewing modelling with caution doesn't mean ignoring it! This is especially true when there are so many other reasons to seriously focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels or finding ways to sequester the CO2.

No Stopping Global Warming, Studies Predict



Bottom Line...nothing we can do....so why fight it. I guess we should all buy flood insurance because in a millenium the water will be this high--*lowers hand to knees

Look...all these models...all of these predictions and estimates that say greenhouse gases and human interference mean nothing if you cannot explain to me why there were major climate shifts before humans even existed. Why was there an ice age 10,000 years ago even though there were no factories or SUVs? Is it possible that it was a natural occurrence that caused it...and the one before that...and the one before that? Is it possible that the cause of the last ice age could be the explanation for whatever would be happening? These last few years are not even the hottest on record...

There may be nothing we can do to stop global warming in the short term but what we have to do is start to thing long term. If we start lowering our pollution now, earth will be more livable 100, 200, 1000 years from now. Also if we lower air pollution now there are immediate air quality improvements.
In general I think ice ages are related to changes in the earth's orbit around the sun which has a predictable cycle. What we are having right now is very rapid climate change.

So we have a possible, I say probable, negative human effect on the ecology of the planet, with consequences of unknown magnatude.

Why not trade the known negative effects of taxation on incomes, labor, & investment for the known beneficial effects of a cleaner environment by trading income tax revenue for 'user' fees on air pollution?

The fact that the ice core and sea floor strata studies reveal repeated dramatic coolings and warming over short periods of time is a powerful argument for paying attention to what we are contributing to climate change. As one scientist observed, "climate is an angry beast and we are stirring it with a stick." The last 10,000 years during which human civilization has developed is a very unusual period of climate stability. Much of the human population would collapse if a rapid change in climate occurs and the evidence is, that once something disturbs an equilibrium condition dramatic climate change can take place over a period of a few years to a few decades.

If you want to explore this topic, I recommend "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley Amazon Review

I still find it troubling that so many resist taking at least the initial steps necessary to address climate change when there are so many other reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Even the USGS and the oil companies predict that oil production will start declining world wide within a few decades. Other prominent geologists think we have already reached peak production or will by 2010. If we have to find alternatives away, why not begin now instead of doing so when a crisis is upon us.

The cause of global warming, as pointed out, supra, has been much debated. The majority (“conservative”) view, supported by corporate-funded research, holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, a small, but vocal, minority (the “alarmists”) point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of “trashing the planet.” And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the majority has thus far prevailed. But perhaps the administration will warm up to global warming now that the pentagon perceives it as a problem affecting national security.
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/...,582584,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html<