Global Warming is Not a Crisis

[the asinine cretin]

http://www.npr.org/t...sId=9082151&m=1

 

Reported here by NPR and watching the debate unfold was no less compelling.

 

"In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

"~from the link above...

 

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2938762

 

Also seconded here by ABC, who reminds us of fashionable alarmist rhetoric of the seventies on a coming ice age; popular and profitable hysterics and nothing more than the groundwork of exploitive fearmongerers.

 

http://intelligences...s-not-a-crisis/ --view full debate video here, it's surprisingly entertaining...

 

I watched the debate and was not won over by the skeptical side in the least. I found the spectacle to be disturbing overall. If I were more motivated I might go through the entire debate and comment on what I found to be illogical and/or false, and why. It was an interesting cast of characters though. As entertainment I enjoyed it. Thanks.

 

P.S. Wait, you think that the "global cooling" canard makes a valid point with respect to the reliability of contemporary climate science?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

I've read that the Gulf Stream will not stop, but will shift west, warming the northern regions of North America and freezing Europe. Perhaps this has already begun, what with all the snow in Europe in recent years.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[matty]

Be right with you, scuuze me.

[the asinine cretin]

Be right with you, scuuze me.

 

I don't understand this post. Are you replying to me or Aristarchus?

[iNow]

Yes, we're all waiting with baited breath and in profound anticipation for the academic force, crippling counter research, and intellectual gusto your next reply is certain to contain.

[matty]

I don't understand this post. Are you replying to me or Aristarchus?

Sorry, yes, you, on the cooling canard, of course, no, I wasn't suggesting to discount obvious, inescapable warming trend science in light of that, lol. Strange how the moment you have an opinion or suggestive idea folks are so quick to throw any number of leaps in with the mix...

 

Yes, we're all waiting with baited breath and in profound anticipation for the academic force, crippling counter research, and intellectual gusto your next reply is certain to contain.

 

Well, aren't you a hoot..

[the asinine cretin]

Sorry, yes, you, on the cooling canard, of course, no, I wasn't suggesting to discount obvious, inescapable warming trend science in light of that, lol. Strange how the moment you have an opinion or suggestive idea folks are so quick to throw any number of leaps in with the mix...

Oh, me, okay. Well, I must confess I do not know what you mean by throwing leaps into the mix, and all that.

 

My view of the matter is this:

 

Climate science in the '70s was an emerging field and in many respects quite different in character from contemporary climate science. Making comparisons without proper qualifications is dubious. But the real issue is that there never was a scientific consensus about global cooling and analyses of the scientific literature of the '70s reveals that it was in fact quite a minority hypothesis. And yet, given the available data of that time, it wasn't unreasonable. But to suggest that this obsolete minority hypothesis of many decades ago somehow casts doubt upon the mature scientific understanding that has since been achieved is quite illogical. It is thoroughly a canard.

 

If you're interested I would first recommend the following paper.

 

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

 

 

 

[matty]

Thanks, I'm very interested in what people are basing stance on these days; someone scoffed at peer-reviewed materials, which have hardly ever been the sole sources at play on either side of the fence, but then so bring something to the discussion of your own, by my thinking. I'm also interested to give a look back again on the detail of these climate model calcs and what goes into them--out of the loop. Do they take into account carbon sinks, irradiance, et al?--Sure they do, but how spurious, anyway, is it all by then?--Figure them for repackaging the Kyoto before too long, under climate change and I hope it's to make it more honest, not more palatable for public consumption as in the past with so many other things that have meant major paradigm shifts to our eventual well-being--or not.

 

In regards to the debate you watched, something no one has ever alluded to as many times as I've shown it around, we were looking to Michael Crichton to head it up, walk us through it--yes?--his creds amounting to having written a fictional work on the subject----in much the same way we were looking to the likes of an Al Gore from the other side of the fence. It should be an entertainment then, the parallel, the climate we're drawn in by today. And at least as frightening as any work of fiction to date...

 

Truth really is stranger than fiction, eh.

~Thanks for sharing your view, I'll catch up with that read over the next day or so.

Edited October 20, 2011 by matty

[the asinine cretin]

Thanks, I'm very interested in what people are basing stance on these days; someone scoffed at peer-reviewed materials, which have hardly ever been the sole sources at play on either side of the fence, but then so bring something to the discussion of your own, by my thinking. I'm also interested to give a look back again on the detail of these climate model calcs and what goes into them--out of the loop. Do they take into account carbon sinks, irradiance, et al?--Sure they do, but how spurious, anyway, is it all by then?--Figure them for repackaging the Kyoto before too long, under climate change and I hope it's to make it more honest, not more palatable for public consumption as in the past with so many other things that have meant major paradigm shifts to our eventual well-being--or not.

 

In regards to the debate you watched, something no one has ever alluded to as many times as I've shown it around, we were looking to Michael Crichton to head it up, walk us through it--yes?--his creds amounting to having written a fictional work on the subject----in much the same way we were looking to the likes of an Al Gore from the other side of the fence. It should be an entertainment then, the parallel, the climate we're drawn in by today. And at least as frightening as any work of fiction to date...

 

Truth really is stranger than fiction, eh.

~Thanks for sharing your view, I'll catch up with that read over the next day or so.

I really don't care about Michael Crichton's credentials, or lack thereof, I didn't find any of his statements in that debate to be substantial and compelling. Lindzen is a real climate scientist (although a well-known pathological contrarian) , and I was hoping to hear more of where he is coming from and maybe witness a serious scientific exchange between him and the actual climate scientists on the other side. The older shill on the "skeptic" side was given way too much time and was merely spewing meaningless think tank talking points. It was a joke.

[matty]

haha, funny, cretin, guess I'll eventually have to go back in and look at it myself, been a while but, still you've all but missed my point, probably because I'm getting turned around and had been speaking, I'm sorry, with ***CETI.***

 

Sorry, yes, you, on the cooling canard, of course, no, I wasn't suggesting to discount obvious, inescapable warming trend science in light of that, lol. Strange how the moment you have an opinion or suggestive idea folks are so quick to throw any number of leaps in with the mix...

 

 

 

Well, aren't you a hoot..

 

See here I said, "Yes, You," as in CETI, he's the one who used 'canard' on me, not you. I'll have to be more careful ..

 

But the pdf is on my list of to-dos, thanks.

Edited October 20, 2011 by matty

[Aristarchus in Exile]

There can be absolutely no doubt that man's activities are contributing to global warming, the only question is how much. We have hundreds of millions or billions of: heat creating motor vehicles, clothes washers and dryers, toasters, home heating units, light bulbs, acres of pavement which generate heat instead of green growth, rooftops which generate heat instead of green growth, airplanes, busses, trains, campfires. Absolutely no doubt.

[matty]

More to the point I was making, cretin, why do you suppose it wasn't your Lindzen they'd appointed to the helm?

 

There can be absolutely no doubt that man's activities are contributing to global warming, the only question is how much. We have hundreds of millions or billions of: heat creating motor vehicles, clothes washers and dryers, toasters, home heating units, light bulbs, acres of pavement which generate heat instead of green growth, rooftops which generate heat instead of green growth, airplanes, busses, trains, campfires. Absolutely no doubt.

 

Right on, and not just those items you've accounted for, naturally, but the manufacturing processes before them which begat them.

 

Of course, we have a duty to an eye toward the future, goes without saying. But we'd better be awful careful on the picking and choosing what we do to that end.

 

If AGW is irresponsible at a certain mindless level, so, too, is--just as numbly--playing into our own economic eventual downfall in an effort to slow it, the US being an international hub, even still.

 

Kinda relegates the entire agw effort itself, then, somewhere in the realm of an ironic final factor in the grand scheme of our eventual demise, maybe the last thing we'll ever find ourselves having a hand in manufacturing so freely.

Edited October 20, 2011 by matty

[swansont]

There can be absolutely no doubt that man's activities are contributing to global warming, the only question is how much. We have hundreds of millions or billions of: heat creating motor vehicles, clothes washers and dryers, toasters, home heating units, light bulbs, acres of pavement which generate heat instead of green growth, rooftops which generate heat instead of green growth, airplanes, busses, trains, campfires. Absolutely no doubt.

 

A little perspective:

 

Total solar power incident on the earth's upper atmosphere is about 1.75 x 10^17 Watts. Total power production on earth is about 1.5 x 10^13 Watts, or a little under 0.01% of that

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Total_.28TSI.29_and_spectral_solar_irradiance_.28SSI.29_upon_Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumption

 

The radiative forcing of CO2 is about 1.5 Watts/m^2 out of the total ~1360 Watts/m^2, which is a bit less than 0.1%.

 

IOW, the energy consumption (some of which is direct or indirect solar and shouldn't be included) has less than 1/10 of the effect of the CO2 on heating the planet.

[questionposter]

All I have to do is look in a good geology book edited by a Ph. D. in Geology (which isn't hard to find, they're all over the place), and look at the graph of CO2 levels compared to the graphs of global temperatures, do people not even read anymore? What about those Kindles? It doesn't matter if there's drawbacks to global climate change, that's the mess we got into. Even if its natural which there's a fair chance it is anyway, so what? Should we just let a giant meteor destroy 90% of all life on the planet just because its natural for meteors to hit planets?

Edited October 21, 2011 by questionposter

[iNow]

Even if its natural which there's a fair chance it is anyway...

No, not really. Only if by "fair chance" you mean "terribly, painfully, insanely unlikely."

 

 

...so what? Should we just let a giant meteor destroy 90% of all life on the planet just because its natural for meteors to hit planets?

Agreed.

 

If AGW is irresponsible at a certain mindless level, so, too, is--just as numbly--playing into our own economic eventual downfall in an effort to slow it

This is very wrong on at least two levels. One - Correcting AGW creates jobs, and will create a lot of wealth. It will put people to work in new sectors and it will make all of us healthier, thus reducing medical expenses and creating even more wealth. Two - Even if we accept that correcting AGW causes economic downfall (which it won't, but let's just say...), you seem to forget that if we make the entire planet uninhabitable to us, then it doesn't matter how much money or gold we have, as there will be nowhere to spend it.

[questionposter]

No, not really. Only if by "fair chance" you mean "terribly, painfully, insanely unlikely."

Nope, there's a fair chance period, and as someone who use to think there was only like a 1% chance, I can say that after looking at specific graphs and statistics myself that there is a fair chance, because if you look at the graphs, the global temperatures in the long term was being controlled largely by the CO2 or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that's been happening without us for a long time, just giant spontaneous shifts in CO2, and it was as if there was this giant almost unimaginable force just pushing those levels around as it pleased (not implying god). There was also new evidence from core samples that CO2 levels were high during the snowball Earth events, suggesting that large CO2 changes are still required to drastically change global temperature, which is also apparent considering the graphs I was looking at there large were, as in 10 million year increments and 25 parts per million increments. But I can also easily say there's a fair chance because it doesn't matter if its man-made or not, its still a problem.

Edited October 21, 2011 by questionposter

[iNow]

I'll respond with my standard response to your point.

 

Saying it's natural is one thing. Accounting for what natural phenomenon is making it happen is quite another. Since we know already that the sun, volcanoes, and other natural sources about which we're aware cannot account for the changes in global average temperatures that we are seeing, what OTHER natural phenomenon in your opinion is causing the warming to happen?

 

 

If that's too hard of a question for you, alternatively let me paraphrase your argument so it becomes more clear. What you're saying is equivalent to, "Humans cannot start forest fires because in the past they've happened naturally." It sounds terribly silly, right? Well, sorry friend, but that's how your posts appear, too.

[matty]

This is very wrong on at least two levels. One - Correcting AGW creates jobs, and will create a lot of wealth. It will put people to work in new sectors and it will make all of us healthier, thus reducing medical expenses and creating even more wealth. Two - Even if we accept that correcting AGW causes economic downfall (which it won't, but let's just say...), you seem to forget that if we make the entire planet uninhabitable to us, then it doesn't matter how much money or gold we have, as there will be nowhere to spend it.

 

 

Heh, yeah, good point on the first, I'm getting a case of tunnelvision, but no-no on the latter. I did not say correcting AGW causes economic downfall, I said quite specifically that irresponsible, haphazard legislating toward that end, however well meaning is, well, irresponsible, and dangerously haphazard especially at this time. If you legislate away jobs by way of suffocating industry in the event of such correction, however, it certainly does negate some of the job creating you do in the corrective sector, lol...

Edited October 21, 2011 by matty

[the asinine cretin]

More to the point I was making, cretin, why do you suppose it wasn't your Lindzen they'd appointed to the helm?

It's not that anyone was appointed to the helm, as far as I know; Lindzen was there on the skeptical panel and presumably could have said more. He just wasn't as chatty and assertive as his non-climate scientist fellows, for whatever reason. And I'm not saying I"m a fan of Lindzen, only that I'd expect him to be capable of having an informed and substantial debate with the panel of actual climate scientists. Not that it matters, but I once had a brief discussion with Lindzen and wasn't impressed by what he had to say. I'll just leave it at that as I don't want to commit character assassination on someone who isn't even here. My only point is to say that while yes, Lindzen is the one actual climate scientist on the contrary side of that so-called debate, I would be particularly skeptical about things that he has to say, but I would take them seriously and take the time to do research. Crighton was busy parroting Lomborg, and the other skeptical guy was simply an offense to reason and I often wished he'd just shut up and let someone else talk. The scientific and climatological ignorance of the audience was thoroughly exploited.

Edited October 21, 2011 by the asinine cretin

[questionposter]

I'll respond with my standard response to your point.

 

Saying it's natural is one thing. Accounting for what natural phenomenon is making it happen is quite another. Since we know already that the sun, volcanoes, and other natural sources about which we're aware cannot account for the changes in global average temperatures that we are seeing, what OTHER natural phenomenon in your opinion is causing the warming to happen?

 

 

If that's too hard of a question for you, alternatively let me paraphrase your argument so it becomes more clear. What you're saying is equivalent to, "Humans cannot start forest fires because in the past they've happened naturally." It sounds terribly silly, right? Well, sorry friend, but that's how your posts appear, too.

 

Natural CO2 changes will happen no matter what, but there's many causes of that, there's hundreds of small meteors that burn up which could easily contain frozen CO2 or water and often do, there could be the fact that we don't consider the moisture in the atmosphere since as the air warms up, the capacity for moisture increases exponentially, there's the position of the continents which sounds strange, but if they are centered around the equator, that allows the ice caps to extend down more and possibly create a snowball Earth, or they could be too near the poles, there could be some change in the carbon cycle with the ocean, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth's tilt or even outburst of cosmic radiation, some of it may be the recent volcanic activity, etc. Again, I"m in no way saying it can't possibly be humans, which if you read my post with hardly any effort you'd have seen, I'm saying that a large amount of the CO2 changes can easily be natural based on all the statistical evidence I've seen myself and the fact that there's soooooo many factors that contribute to global climate change.

There's no possible way that global climate change or even the levels of green-house gases could only be the result of only one factor.

Edited October 21, 2011 by questionposter

[CaptainPanic]

Natural CO2 changes will happen no matter what, but there's many causes of that, there's hundreds of small meteors that burn up which could easily contain frozen CO2 or water and often do[...]

 

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in hundreds of gigatons. That's in the order of 100,000,000,000 ton... which coincidentally is about the same as the huge asteroid (of 10 kilometers across) that made the dinosaurs go extinct. Are you seriously suggesting this?

 

Also, if meteors would make our CO2 concentration go up, why the hell did this only start a few years ago (and why aren't astronomers jumping up and down because of this increased meteor activity)?

 

, there could be the fact that we don't consider the moisture in the atmosphere since as the air warms up, the capacity for moisture increases exponentially,

Are you suggesting that climate models don't take into account the water balances properly???? Come on, you have to come up with something better. Of course they know that the water vapor pressure changes as a function of the temperature. It changes more than an order of magnitude. They wouldn't be able to predict a single rain shower if they didn't know this.

 

there's the position of the continents which sounds strange, but if they are centered around the equator, that allows the ice caps to extend down more and possibly create a snowball Earth, or they could be too near the poles, there could be some change in the carbon cycle with the ocean, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth's tilt or even outburst of cosmic radiation, some of it may be the recent volcanic activity, etc. Again, I"m in no way saying it can't possibly be humans, which if you read my post with hardly any effort you'd have seen, I'm saying that a large amount of the CO2 changes can easily be natural based on all the statistical evidence I've seen myself and the fact that there's soooooo many factors that contribute to global climate change.

There's no possible way that global climate change or even the levels of green-house gases could only be the result of only one factor.

 

Nobody said it's just 1 factor. But recently there was only 1 factor which changed a lot: humans.

 

There is no increased meteor activity.

Water is already in the models. Properly.

Continents move really slow.

The earth's tilt hasn't changed much either.

The oceans are in the models already.

 

All that extra CO2 comes from us. The only thing debated is whether it will really make the world heat up or not. But I cannot understand why you come up with a mad story about space-CO2 or just think that climate scientists haven't understood thermodynamics.

 

Sorry if this is a little harsh...

[swansont]

I'm saying that a large amount of the CO2 changes can easily be natural based on all the statistical evidence I've seen myself

 

Fossil-fuel carbon is devoid of C-14, and there are difference is the C-12/C-13 ratio for terrestrial vs oceanic sources. You can do isotopic analysis to find the dominant source of the increase in atmospheric carbon. Can you guess the answer?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

No, not really. Only if by "fair chance" you mean "terribly, painfully, insanely unlikely."

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

This is very wrong on at least two levels. One - Correcting AGW creates jobs, and will create a lot of wealth. It will put people to work in new sectors and it will make all of us healthier, thus reducing medical expenses and creating even more wealth. Two - Even if we accept that correcting AGW causes economic downfall (which it won't, but let's just say...), you seem to forget that if we make the entire planet uninhabitable to us, then it doesn't matter how much money or gold we have, as there will be nowhere to spend it.

 

The world could accept huge amounts of economic downturn without doing much harm to anyone except those whose life consists of material toys, for instance most of us in Canada, the U.S.A., Europe, Russia, etc.

[iNow]

Natural CO2 changes will happen no matter what

 

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

 

The world could accept huge amounts of economic downturn without doing much harm to anyone except those whose life consists of material toys, for instance most of us in Canada, the U.S.A., Europe, Russia, etc.

Nonsense. You seem to forget the enormous amount of food and medical aid those people with "material toys" provide to the underdeveloped world. The problem with oversimplified broad unsupported assertions such as the one you've just presented here is that they are generally myopic, misguided, and mistaken.

[phlegmatic]

Politicizing scientific debate is like dumping ketchup on your filet mignon. In the process of doubting everything at one point in time or another, I must confess that I myself investigated the idea that global warming was some big hoax. Exactly who benefits from a fictionalized global warming scenario is where deniers start to get a little hazy and where they lost me, since even small steps like the Kyoto Protocol are neutered in utero and green businesses are often in the red while oil is always, always in the black. Why is it that people get all decked out in their crusader gear whenever the subject of climate change comes up, whether they be pro or con?