global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[JohnB]

If you look at the last half-million years of temperature data, there are some changes of several degrees, but the fluctuations on thousand-year times outside of this are of are much smaller.

I disagree. Ice cores show an abrupt temp change of 12-15 degrees in Greenland during the Younger Dryas period. Considering the amplification at higher latitudes this still implies a 2-3 degree change for the temperate and tropical regions, changes far larger and at higher rates than observed in the 20th C.

Considering that the recent change in CO2 is of order 50,000 ppb I have to think you meant ppm, but then, when in the last half-million years has the CO2 been 5,000 ppm? Something does not jibe here.

Yes, I meant ppm. Apologies, my thoughts were running ahead. I was responding to predictions of calamity generally made in the MSM, not by anyone here. As such the comment is irrelevent to the conversation and should be ignored.

It hasn't been 1.8 mm/year over all time of course. Extrapolating the curve from last 100 years — in either direction — isn't valid.

There is some difference in the interpretation here. Most graphs I have seen are smoothed as this one is. You'll notice the graph shows a 1.3-1.6 mm/year rise for the last 2,000 years. (Changes in sea level in the historical period are matters of record, not extrapolation.) I believe however, that there is a large problem in interpreting post glacial sea level changes due to isostatic changes. Is the sea rising or the land sinking?

 

However there are references to relatively large changes in the historical record. Part of Drake's tactics in 1588 was to attempt to get the Spanish Armada to change course near Plymouth. A series of rocks that were above water in the early 1500s were submerged by 1588 and he hoped to ground the fleet. It was believed that the rocks were not on the Spanish maps.

 

OTOH if we look at this CSIRO page, we see the remains of old Roman Piscinae at about the level they would have been 2,000 years ago.

 

Summary: Depending on where you look, sea level rise is between 4 metres and zero over the last 2 millenia. Oh goody.

 

I find it interesting that the Climate Change Science links to an interview with Dr. Morner where he states;

You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible! These are figures which are so large, that only when the ice caps were vanishing, did we have those types of rates.

I think that he makes a fair point.

[iNow]

I find it interesting that the Climate Change Science links to an interview with Dr. Morner...

 

I find it "interesting" as well. He's part of the "Scientific Alliance" and has questionable motives and seems to fight for some agendas which run counter to the science:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scientific_Alliance

 

 

Here's another strange place to find his name:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jan/28/environment.environment

 

 

 

Regarding that meeting he helped further:

 

It's very important to know where these sceptics are coming from and to identify lobbyists as distinct from scientists."

 

Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute, a group funded by ExxonMobil, which it claimed "undermined" theories of climate change.

 

Bob May, the president of the Royal Society, said the sceptics were a "denial lobby" similar to those who refused to accept that smoking caused cancer.

[JohnB]

Also interesting that John Stauber of Sourcewatch has connections with Environmental Media Services, the people who own RealClimate? Mr. Stauber also believes the US .gov is actively covering up evidence of BSE in the US.

 

It's a conspiracy between government and big business you know.

and seems to fight for some agendas which run counter to the science

You mean like using pesticides? Sourcewatch calls it;

anti-environmental, anti-organic and pro-GM and pro-nuclear power.

So the science says we should be "pro-environmental, pro-organic and anti-GM and anti-nuclear"? However, since Fenton Communications (who own EMS) number "organic" farmers amoung their clients, this is not surprising is it?

 

I add that the Guardian article misrepresents Dr. Morner's position.

 

From the article;

a convenient rumour started by bungling Japanese pineapple farmers.

Some tales of sea-level rises, he said, could be attributed to the Japanese pineapple industry, which caused land to subside by drilling for too much fresh water.

What he really said (speaking exclusively about Tuvalu);

Then we know that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It's the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.”

While I'm not wild about his pushing the "dowsing" idea, Dr. Morner has published in peer reviewed journals. From what I've seen, he doesn't comment in the media about things he can't back up with papers. I would think quoting Sourcewatch falls into the category of "Poisoning the Well". If you have a problem with him, here is his recent paper concerning sea level changes in the Maldives. Perhaps you can show where he or his data is wrong?

Our sea level investigations of the Maldives (detailed, well-dated and conducted by a team of specialists) have shown that the sea in not at all in a rapidly rising mode, probably not rising at all, and with a significant fall in the 1970s (Mörner, Tooley, Possnert, 2004; Mörner, 2004; 2005).

[Edtharan]

I don't know if you realise this, but a good part of your last post is just paraphrasing things I have said. We are arguing semantics, not science.

I think that it is that we agree on most thing, but that we disagree on the conclusions.

 

The basic point I am trying to get across is that the twin concepts of 'tipping points' and 'runaway positive feed-back' are theories, and are not demonstrated to be correct.

No, Tipping points and Runaway feedback are properties of complex systems (actually the mechanisms for them to occur), and the climate is a complex system, therefore it should have the same properties as other complex system (the mechanisms for tipping points and runaway feedback).

 

I have seen enough descriptions of theoretical negative feed-back mechanisms, to believe that they are equally likely as positive.

Actually I have been saying that both positive and Negative feedback exist in complex systems. What I have been saying is that when the effects of the positive feedback loops don't exceed the effects of the Negative feedback, the system is stable (specifically a Dynamic Stability). However, all it then takes is for something to push the positive feedback effects above the Negative feedback effects and you have a tipping point and a runaway effect (see how systems with both positive and negative feedback naturally have these tipping points, it is not just a theory it is a mathematical fact).

 

Yes, because of the nature of the climate systems, they will find new equilibriums. The thing is, that equilibrium will be different to the one we have now.

 

"Equilibrium?" "Stable?"

The evidence suggests that historically the climate system has never been stable or reached equilibrium.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. What I should have said is Dynamic Stability and Dynamic Equilibrium. But as we were discussing complex systems and the concepts of dynamic Equilibrium and Stability are part of that subject, I assumed that it would make sense.

 

The concepts of Dynamic Equilibrium/Stability are based around how complex systems either tend to enter a runaway effect (either getting bigger or crashing to 0) or remain around particular values.

 

When a complex system remains around particular values (or behaviours), this is called dynamic Equilibrium/Stability. In these states the systems tend to be fairly predictable. In terms of climate systems this means we can be fairly certain what the weather is going to be like. For instance, we know that the tropics will tend to have lots of storms and rain at certain times of the year. Or that when the El Nino event is occuring that the weather in Australia will be a certain way.

 

Because at these times, the system is dominated by negative feedback effects, the system will be similar over time. There are still positive feedback effects so there will be some variation (and these variations are also used to show that there are positive feedback effects in the system - even if we don't know what they are). If there were no positive feedback effects, the system would move to a certain state (values/behaviour) and there would be no variation from that state. However, because there are fluctuations, we know that there are positive feedback effects in the system.

 

The thing is, if the positive feedback effects ever get bigger than the negative feedback effects, the system becomes unstable and can rapidly shift to a new and very different state. Some systems will go into a complete unchecked runaway spiral, but the climate system has certain negative feedback effects (specifically the one where the hotter an object the more heat it radiates - so we can never enter into a completely unchecked runaway heating spiral).

 

If you want an absolute extreme for what a climate system could go to, just look a Venus. However, the amount of disruption needed to cause that on Earth is nowhere near the effects we are talking about here (now that would be alarmist ). What we might be looking at is a few degrees change in temperature (up or down), but a few degrees of change could cause a lot of disruption to the world as we know it.

 

The other problem with complex systems is that when tipping points are reached and the dynamic stability breaks down (and you enter instability), is that the systems, being complex, are unpredictable (well really hard and you can't be accurate as the slightest uncertainty about the initial state will lead to a large difference from the predicted state). The only reason we can make predictions about our climate system, is that we are in a dynamically stable period.

 

If we are lucky (and act in time) then we might not hit a tipping point (or only hit one that ends up not having a big effect - but we will only know how bad until after we hit it and see the effects) and all we end up with is a little more uncertainty in our current climate systems (it will make it harder to predict the weather, but we will develop models for the new state).

 

If we hit a major tipping point, then it is all up in the air. It could be bad, it could be neutral, or it could even be good (unlikely but it is a possible outcome). If we hit that tipping point, about all we can say at the moment is that it will be different, it won't be the end of the world, and we will (eventually) adapt.

 

I recomend two books to read:

Patterns in the Sand this is all abut complex systems.

Collapse: How Societies choose to fail or survive this is about how societies can either adapt or fail to adapt to change.

[iNow]

What he really said (speaking exclusively about Tuvalu)

 

 

That's a fair response, John. You raise valid points. I will simply address your point:

 

If you have a problem with him, here is his recent paper concerning sea level changes in the Maldives. Perhaps you can show where he or his data is wrong?

 

...as follows:

 

 

Regional variations do not extrapolate 1:1 to global patterns.

 

It's really another version of the same old argument... Because it was cold in Brisbane on Tuesday at one in the morning the Earth is not getting warmer overall during the past several decades. (while I know this part of the conversation is about sea level, not temp, it was a valid analogy).

 

Enjoy.

[SkepticLance]

To Edtharan

 

Again, much of what you said is something I agree with. A complex dynamic system with have both positive and negative feed-back systems. What I get irked with is the catastrophist view that ignores the negative feed-backs and concentrates on hypothetical positive feed-backs which might, or might not, kick in some time in the next few decades. Of course the catastrophists never admit they might not. Not do they ever admit that there might be negative feed-backs to provide a rough balance. It is the bias, and one-eyed view that I oppose. And the incredibly pessimistic belief in total disaster.

 

The world has been much warmer in the past. As I said, if we look back 120,000 years to the previous interglacial, it got to 2 Celsius warmer than the present. And if we look at the trend of warmings during interglacials over the past million years, it is increasing. This means that if our current interglacial is part of the trend, it will peak at more than 2 C warmer than the present temperature, even without anthropogenic influences.

 

Even that past warming was not the record. If we look back to the Cretaceous, there were times when temperature got to almost 10 C warmer than the present - though there is some debate about this, since the measures are unavoidably indirect. Average Cretaceous temperature was 4 C warmer than now.

 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97PA00721.shtml

 

There is no doubt that the Age of Dinosaurs was much warmer than now, and the world did not come to an end. Nor was it a disaster for life. Indeed, it was a time for incredibly abundant life and amazing biodiversity.

 

One item I read suggested that CO2 was up to 10 times our historical average during the Cretaceous, though I do not quite know how they drew that conclusion.

 

The point I am making is simply that there is no immediate cause for panic. The warming of the world is faster than normal, yes. But past warmings have permitted abundant and diverse life, and this warming will be the same. Change is happening, but not catastrophe.

[Edtharan]

What I get irked with is the catastrophist view that ignores the negative feed-backs and concentrates on hypothetical positive feed-backs which might, or might not, kick in some time in the next few decades.

I have not been ignoring the Negative feedbacks. I have (repeatedly) stated that they exist and that they are actually having an effect on global climate.

 

What I am saying is that if you increase the positive feedback loops so that the exceed the Negative feedback loops, then you will get rapid and unpredictable changes.

 

Yes, other negative feedback loops exist and will then check the positive feedback loops, but it will not be immediate (lag) and the resulting state of the system will not be the same as it is today.

 

As much of our survival infrastructure relies on the current predictability of the climate systems (when to plant crops, which areas don't have too many storms so that crops don't get ruined, flooding, etc), changes to these regularities will necessarily cause disruption to those self same survival systems.

 

Of course the catastrophists never admit they might not.

Stop with the "ists" (Alarmists, Catastrophist). This is just plain steriotyping. Just because someone makes a prediction (or even just speculation) that things could get bad, does not make them wrong.

 

Sure, the Y2K thing had there "ists", and you are thinking that this could just be another Y2K thing.

 

I actually agree that we don't need to be alarmist and predict the "End of the World"

 

And the incredibly pessimistic belief in total disaster.

Yes, it is unlikely to be a total disaster. But we don't try to avoid disasters only if they are "total".

 

If we could do something that would save the lives of a few million people, that would be good. Even if it was only a few hundred thousand, or even just 1, it would still be good.

 

Humanity is intelligent (ok an few :rolleyes:), and we will adapt to this new environmental state. But many will die and loose their lively hood in the process. If we could stop that, or even reduce the amount of damage done, that is a good thing.

 

I am not an alarmist, I just value human lives.

 

I am not a pessimist (another "ist"), but I just don't blindly think that things will be rosy, I try to make thing better (or at least try to avoid things becoming worse).

 

A true optimist is one that knows that things can get bad, but with effort, things don't have to stay bad.

 

The person that claims to be an optimist and so continues on without any effort is just a pessimist in disguise (if this is the best it can be, why even bother to try to improve things?).

 

There is no doubt that the Age of Dinosaurs was much warmer than now, and the world did not come to an end. Nor was it a disaster for life. Indeed, it was a time for incredibly abundant life and amazing biodiversity.

Yes, and the world had millions of years to adapt to those states. What we are talking about is climate change on a much more rapid scale.

 

And yes, there is evidence that there was rapid climate changes in the past. And these were all accompanied by mass extinctions.

 

That would be a "total disaster".

 

The Permian-Triassic mass extinction event (the largest known event), happened in 3 phases (pluses), the first was though to be due to climate change.

 

This is just one example, there are many other mass extinctions that have been caused by climate changes. But then the animals evolve to suit the new environments. But that takes millions of years.

 

Yes, life thrived in these warmer climates, but there didn't thrive until long after these changes occurred and they had had time to evolve to suit these environments.

 

This seems to indicate that when these changes take place, it becomes difficult for all life to survive.

 

So, based on historical precedent (which you seem to like), climate change is near total disaster for any creatures alive at the time of the changes.

 

Hmm, maybe we should be alarmist...

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan

 

Again, much of what you say, I agree with. Let us agree that global climate is a complex system with both positive and negative feed-back systems, and is in a state of dynamic change.

 

I am interested in the Permian-Triassic extinction event. I just watched a doco on this subject about a week ago. The proponent in this doco proposed that this event was, like the Cretaceous extinction, caused by an asteroid impact. Apparently, when an asteroid strikes, shock waves pass through the Earth and converge at the opposite point of the globe, compared to the site of impact. At the point of convergence, they yield a massive release of energy.

 

The theory, for the Permian event, was that this point of convergence was Siberia, and caused the Siberian Plate Eruptions. Interestingly, for the Cretaceous event, the impact off Mexico is matched by a point diametrically opposite in India, where, at the time of the impact, a massive series of volcanic eruptions took place 65 million years ago.

 

If the Siberian eruptions were diametrically opposite to a Permian asteroid impact, the site of the impact crater would be Antarctica. And such a crater, of suitable massive size has been 'discovered'. Sadly, it is under more than a mile of ice, and no-one has drilled it to collect samples, and prove it is an impact crater. It has been located by gravity measurements instead.

 

Assuming the Permian event was, indeed, an asteroid impact, the asteroid would be so big that, when the tip struck the Earth, the opposite end would still be in the stratosphere. The aftermath included a massive release of Hydrogen Sulfide. We do not need to postulate climate change as the cause of the extinctions (though the climate change was there) since the H2S was quite sufficient to wipe out the 98% of species that died.

[Edtharan]

We do not need to postulate climate change as the cause of the extinctions (though the climate change was there) since the H2S was quite sufficient to wipe out the 98% of species that died.

Unfortunately the Permian-Triassic event was not as simple as a huge hunk of rock slamming into the Earth. There were 3 phases to that event, 3 distinct extinction events around that time. The asteroid was the 2rd one (the first was likely due to climatic changes that were occuring at the end of the Permian and the 3rd one was likely due to volcanic activity which was probably set off by the asteroid impact like you said). So there was extinction events happening before the asteroid hit.

 

But that was only 1 example. There are many more examples of rapid climate changes causing massive disruptions of the ecosystems (the end of the last Ice age for another example).

 

Let us agree that global climate is a complex system with both positive and negative feed-back systems, and is in a state of dynamic change.

But it also seem like we disagree about what to do about it. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't do anything about the change, where as I am saying that we should try to reduce the effects of human activity as much as possible.

 

It is a bit like if you park a car at the top of a hill and not put on the brakes. Sure you could claim that it was not your fault that the car rolled down the hill, it was instead the fault of gravity, and it could have rolled down anyway if the brakes failed. But, ultimately it would have been your fault for not minimising your own contributions to the situation.

It is the same rational behind climate change. Sure, GW might not produce a bad outcome (it could even be better than it is now), but the problem is that we don't know if it will be bad or good. Sure we could say that GW would occur without our influence and just "leave the brakes off", or we could put the brakes on and minimise our responsibility for what occurs.

 

Ignorance is not bliss, especially in this case. You have argued against using climate models as they are incomplete. You are arguing for ignorance and therefore "plausible denyability" in the case of disaster (we didn't try to predict what would happen, so no one predicted it would occur, so it's not really our fault).

 

I am not arguing for the alarmists, instead I am arguing that we should open our eyes and be sceptical of both sides of the argument, both for and against. This does entail looking at worst case scenarios and not just dismissing them because they are worst case scenarios. To do otherwise is called Cherry Picking and is it is a Logical Fallacy (and as someone who claims to be a sceptic, one would think you would be alert for logical fallacies so as to properly be sceptical of the arguments ).

[SkepticLance]

To Edtharan

 

One thing I have noticed in these discussions is a strong tendency by many people to read into other people's posts what they think they said, rather than what they really said.

 

For example, take the following paragraph in your last post :

 

"But it also seem like we disagree about what to do about it. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't do anything about the change, where as I am saying that we should try to reduce the effects of human activity as much as possible."

 

I have never said we should do nothing. My message has been very consistent and repeated often. My assertion is that action is needed, but must be well researched, well managed, and controlled. Panicky reaction must be avoided. My favourite example of stupid response is the widespread use of palm oil in the EEC to replace diesel as part of their Kyoto requirements for biofuel. End result : the palm oil producing countries cut down tropical rainforest wholesale to plant the oil palm trees. The net result is to make the environmental situation much worse from several viewpoints.

 

I would much rather see action being slower than desired, than too rapid, since that should reduce or avoid the stupidity. Too much alarm being promulgated leads to lobby groups pushing for rapid action, and that leads to ever worsening environmental damage.

 

A more recent idea is to grind up billions of tonnes of limestine and add it into the ocean, to absorb more CO2.

CaCO3 +CO2 + H20 = Ca(HCO3)2

Yet this idea has not been researched except in the most cursory way. Now I hope that the powers that be are smart enough to put that idea on the back burner for a good 20 years or so, to permit all aspects to be fully researched. Who knows what ecological and other harmful consequences might result from that amount of bicarbonate in the ocean.

 

I argue against the pessimistic view of global warming, not to tell everyone we should not do anything about it, but to alleviate the panic, with the idea that we can choose action that has had time to be properly studied. Or else to use actions that have a smaller global impact, making them less likely to cause serious harm.

[iNow]

Here is an appproach that I don't think is at all alarmist, and is actually quite valid and inspiring:

 

 

 

To be fair to you, Lance, I think the perception of this stuff is somewhat different in the US that in NZ. We're fighting slightly different battles, so tend to use slightly different tactics.

[Edtharan]

I would much rather see action being slower than desired, than too rapid, since that should reduce or avoid the stupidity.

It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't. We (that is the scientists of the world) have known of Global Warming for over 3 decades. The solutions that are still being proposed today (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) are still the ones that were proposed back then. The problem is that the solutions that end up being taken up are ones that continue our reliance on the cause of the current problems.

 

It is not that we have been acting too fast when implementing solutions, it is that we have been acting too slow and trying to keep the status quo.

 

Solutions like Carbon Sequestration is what I am talking about. We don't know if it will work, but that is not the problem. It is only addressing the symptoms.

 

If you broke your arm, would accept that the only "solution" the doctors gave you was to take painkillers for it because it is causing you pain?

 

No!

 

Carbon Sequestration is addressing the symptom (the pain) rather than the cause (the broken arm). It is our reliance on fossil fuels that is the problem.

 

They are finite, polluting, and they are most readily available in locations of the world that are unstable (the instability is most likely caused by the availability of the fossil fuels).

 

If the politicians of a country woke up one day and said "Lets switch to Solar Power", then that would be good. It might not be the best, it might damage the economy slightly, but it is far better than the current system (reliance of fossil fuels).

[scalbers]

Greetings,

 

A few posts back there was a comment that a past interglacial was 2C warmer so the natural interglacial should do the same this time. I think the Earth's orbit is more circular now so the amplitude of the glacial cycles will be less. Also we should actually be headed towards a cooling now considering the Earth's orbit. This is likely being overridden by human activities however - and then some.

 

I think people can adapt to an extent to changes in climate, however if the natural ecosystems start to collapse would that really be good for humanity? I think that is a real concern. Remember the ocean acidity as well.

 

The cost of solar by the way sounds less than what we pay in the U.S. for oil from other countries.

 

Steve

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think we should be acting much more quickly? My feeling is that it is a mistake to do that. There is no immediate crisis, and we can do more harm than good by not implementing the correct measures.

 

We have done little in 30 years, true. However, I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. 30 years ago, we did not have the means to replace fossil fuels. Electricity generation from non fossil means (apart from hydro and geothermal) were much more expensive or hazardous. The technology has now got to the stage where nuclear is safer, and such things as wind and solar are getting cheaper.

 

A complete replacement of fossil fuels will probably take another 30 years at least, since the new techniques required are still under development. However, the progress is there. We now have hybrid cars. Next stage, perhaps next year, is plug in hybrid cars that will run as pure electric cars most of the time. After that, rapid recharge pure electric cars that can do 200 kms per charge and recharge in 10 minutes, meaning that you can use these vehicles for long journeys.

 

We have means of cutting power usage. New technology lights that use 10% of the power incandescent bulbs required. New LED lights slowly being introduced that are even better. Heat pumps instead of electric heaters that use a quarter of the power per heat unit. This is a tiny part of the whole list of new developments that will help reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

 

Given time, we will have the means. Rush us, and the result will be much, much worse.

[iNow]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think we should be acting much more quickly? My feeling is that it is a mistake to do that. There is no immediate crisis.

This is simply wrong. The immediacy of the crisis is in the fact that our past and current behaviors will continue their impact on the climate for decades to come. Try again.

[swansont]

Edtharan

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think we should be acting much more quickly? My feeling is that it is a mistake to do that. There is no immediate crisis, and we can do more harm than good by not implementing the correct measures.

 

We have done little in 30 years, true. However, I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. 30 years ago, we did not have the means to replace fossil fuels. Electricity generation from non fossil means (apart from hydro and geothermal) were much more expensive or hazardous. The technology has now got to the stage where nuclear is safer, and such things as wind and solar are getting cheaper.

 

A complete replacement of fossil fuels will probably take another 30 years at least, since the new techniques required are still under development. However, the progress is there. We now have hybrid cars. Next stage, perhaps next year, is plug in hybrid cars that will run as pure electric cars most of the time. After that, rapid recharge pure electric cars that can do 200 kms per charge and recharge in 10 minutes, meaning that you can use these vehicles for long journeys.

 

We have means of cutting power usage. New technology lights that use 10% of the power incandescent bulbs required. New LED lights slowly being introduced that are even better. Heat pumps instead of electric heaters that use a quarter of the power per heat unit. This is a tiny part of the whole list of new developments that will help reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

 

Given time, we will have the means. Rush us, and the result will be much, much worse.

 

This is a political question though, and the danger is that no action will be taken if there is a perception that there isn't a problem. Why should I spend extra money on fancy lighting, electric cars or green power sources if global warming really isn't all that big of a deal?

[booker]

Thanks Chris.

 

Tell me something...

 

Who are our world leaders listening to? Are they listening to the actual experts, real climatologists and IPCC members, or are they just going on their own opinions or misinformed sources like the great majority of people?

 

Hello, Gib. The UN is a political entity. The question at hand is what evidence would support the claim that the UN IPCC should be motivated to honest reporting of the facts. It is without doubt that the individuals within the UN have a professional intestest in promoting global issues in order to be invested with the power to solve them. I don't find an ameliorating motive.

 

It seems to have been forgotten that the UN IPCC long ago soiled their credibility with their 1994(?) report. It was not the multi-thousand page report that was false, but the politically generated abstract of some 200 pages that infuriated the contributing scientists for it's fraudulent synopsis of their hard work.

 

Yet subsequent reports are filed and taken as credible.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

A lie told long enough becomes the truth. -Smilin' Joe Stalin

Edited July 27, 2008 by booker

[iNow]

You do realize, right, that the IPCC is a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed works... thousands of them.

 

I propose to you the following, booker. Name one study cited by the IPCC report which is at fault. Until then, your blanket dismissal of them as a "political entity" smacks of the academic dishonesty of a hand waving denialist.

[booker]

You do realize, right, that the IPCC is a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed works... thousands of them.

 

I propose to you the following, booker. Name one study cited by the IPCC report which is at fault. Until then, your blanket dismissal of them as a "political entity" smacks of the academic dishonesty of a hand waving denialist.

 

I did that, iNow, though I was speaking of the abstract, not the study. This is not a small point. With the choice of thousands of pages vs. an abstract, the abstract was, naturally, most disseminated and read.

 

Here's one online reference I managed to track-down. UN IPCC "The Science of Climate Change 1995," http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

 

Additionally, and something I was not previously aware of, according to the above link, the body of the report itself, was tampered with.

 

By the way, congradulations on your contest win.

Edited July 27, 2008 by booker

[iNow]

I did that, iNow, though I was speaking of the abstract, not the study. This is not a small point. With the choice of thousands of pages vs. an abstract, the abstract was most read.

 

Again, it's not one study, so there is not an abstract. I'm beginning to wonder if you've even read the IPCC report. Just in case, here's a link:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

 

 

Did you perhaps mean the Summary for Policy Makers?

[booker]

Again, it's not one study, so there is not an abstract. I'm beginning to wonder if you've even read the IPCC report. Just in case, here's a link:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

 

 

Did you perhaps mean the Summary for Policy Makers?

 

I won't play the word games. Would you be denying the tampering or misrepresentation?

[Edtharan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think we should be acting much more quickly?

There is an urgency (in that the longer we go on the harder we will have to work to make any corrections - if we still can).

 

My feeling is that it is a mistake to do that. There is no immediate crisis, and we can do more harm than good by not implementing the correct measures.

What problems do you see in implementing National Solar Power Grids?

 

There are costs, but with rising fossil fuel costs, and even if the solar power technology does not improve, we will still come out better.

 

The cost of oil might drop (one reason would be that demand suddenly drops), but the only way we can know if it will or not, is to wait it out (which we don't have the luxury to do).

 

There might be better systems out there (wind, wave, geothermal, etc), but if we include the prospect of taking these up if successful, then we can mitigate this risk.

 

Someone might develop and even better solar power system. Well this too can be accounted for, just like for alternate technologies.

 

We can do this by specifying the needs of a future project (power station) using today's costs and knowing that future technologies will be cheaper and more efficient (or if not, then we would have at least the same cost as today). Any savings can then be put to further use, maybe by future proofing the new system or put back into research for better power technologies.

 

What we need is the governments to fund the production chains of these technologies, from source to implementation. This could be through grants, loans, or even creating government own businesses (wholly or in part) with the plan to privatise them at the end of a certain period (maybe at the break even point).

 

I also understand that it is not as simple as what I laid out here, but I wasn't actually attempting to layout a specific plan, just demonstrate that a plan of action could be undertaken that minimises risk (or even eliminates it).

 

It is almost like we are caught in a cycle of perfectionism. We don't seem to be able to act until we know that the choice we make is the perfect one. We don't need a perfect system, we just need one that solve the problems, and these already exist (solar and wind).

[scalbers]

I agree we should act more quickly since the current pace is in the opposite direction of what we want (increasing emissions every year). Clearly we should step up the pace if we want to phase out fossil fuels within 30 years or so.

[booker]

Unfortunately, the archives by http://www.sepp.org detailing the fraud surrounding the 1995 IPCC report are now dead-lettered to the sepp home page. Imagine that.

 

This .pdf covers the controvery and politicization http://www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/ecofables.pdf

Edited July 27, 2008 by booker

[swansont]

Unfortunately, the archives by http://www.sepp.org detailing the fraud surrounding the 1995 IPCC report are now dead-lettered to the sepp home page. Imagine that.

 

Instead of insinuations of conspiracy, how about presenting actual evidence of that, and of tampering and misrepresentation.