# More re climate change



## Ukko

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...ork-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/

You will have to do a little manipulation to get the link to work (needs to be on one line).

More about the 'tipping point'. Maybe it's gaining on us. As early as 2020 it may no longer matter what humans do - we'll be screwed.

So, ah... should we be doing something while it does still matter?

:trp:


----------



## Vaneyes

I'm doing my part with methane emissions.


----------



## Polednice

I was reading something the other day which had the general argument that we need to be saved by technologists. I certainly don't think we stand a chance if we place our trust in politicians. Damn it, you've made me all scared about the future now! I sense so much pain


----------



## Ukko

Vaneyes said:


> I'm doing my part with methane emissions.


Holding them in? That ain't good for you.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I was reading something the other day which had the general argument that we need to be saved by technologists. I certainly don't think we stand a chance if we place our trust in politicians. Damn it, you've made me all scared about the future now! I sense so much pain


Well... I can only suggest that you get in as much living (and loving) as you can, while you can. If I were a youngster, maybe I would go eco-militant (if that's even a word).


----------



## Scarpia

It is an interesting question, whether the human species is capable of concerted action to avert a catastrophe which is so far in the future. I think the preliminary evidence supports the answer, no.

In the end, the earth is like a Petri dish. You fill it with media, to inoculate it with a single bacteria, which grows until the dish is covered and all the food is gone.


----------



## Vaneyes

Hilltroll72 said:


> Holding them in? That ain't good for you.


No, and thanks for asking--eating less broccoli, eating slower, and using Gas-X for friendlier emissions.


----------



## Guest

Scarpia said:


> It is an interesting question, whether the human species is capable of concerted action to avert a catastrophe which is so far in the future. I think the preliminary evidence supports the answer, no.
> 
> *In the end, the earth is like a Petri dish. You fill it with media, to inoculate it with a single bacteria, which grows until the dish is covered and all the food is gone*.


Except that the earth is much more complex. There is more than one single organism, some organisms are able to replenish certain nutrient sources for others, organisms can adapt to subsisting off of new nutrients, and there are an as of yet undetermined number of variables that determine all of these factors. Sorry, but that analogy is simplistic in the extreme, to where it comes nowhere near approximating our actual condition.


----------



## Scarpia

DrMike said:


> Except that the earth is much more complex. There is more than one single organism, some organisms are able to replenish certain nutrient sources for others, organisms can adapt to subsisting off of new nutrients, and there are an as of yet undetermined number of variables that determine all of these factors. Sorry, but that analogy is simplistic in the extreme, to where it comes nowhere near approximating our actual condition.


You thought I proposed it as a realistic model of the earth ecosystem? I think we can peg your sense of humor as ten to the negative sixth power times a normal human.


----------



## Ukko

Scarpia said:


> You thought I proposed it as a realistic model of the earth ecosystem? I think we can peg your sense of humor as ten to the negative sixth power times a normal human.


_DrMike_ has been twisting wrists with Hitchens this PM. The experience has soured him, I think he said.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

We are hell-bent on producing more and more carbon dioxide, and of course it's a stupid thing to do. Simple physics tells us that.

If it were a smart thing to do, many fewer people would be required to defend it. But we won't see the elephant in the room, so I say fnck it. Let us learn this lesson the hard way. It's what the human race does best.


----------



## Scarpia

Fsharpmajor said:


> If it were a smart thing to do, many fewer people would be required to defend it. But we won't see the elephant in the room, so I say fnck it. Let us learn this lesson the hard way. It's what the human race does best.


Some things are more easily undone than others...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Scarpia said:


> Some things are more easily undone than others...


Halting every project having to do with the Alberta tar sands is the main priority. Tying them up in legal knots for many years is the best available plan.


----------



## Rasa

Molten Floride THorium salt reactor

Fusion

Reducing earth's population.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I'm with you, but we aren't gonna have fusion for at least another fifty years or so...and reducing Earth's population may have to start somewhere--it probably will, whether we like it not, when we run out of phosphate fertilizer--but on which continent should it begin?


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm with you, but we aren't gonna have fusion for at least another fifty years or so...and reducing Earth's population may have to start somewhere--it probably will, whether we like it not, when we run out of phosphate fertilizer--but on which continent should it begin?


Hasn't the reduction already started - in Africa? Famine and pestilence...


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm with you, but we aren't gonna have fusion for at least another fifty years or so...and reducing Earth's population may have to start somewhere--it probably will, whether we like it not, when we run out of phosphate fertilizer--but on which continent should it begin?


My vote is Europe - any continent that has kicked off two world wars in one century should be moved to the top of the list.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> My vote is Europe - any continent that has kicked off two world wars in one century should be moved to the top of the list.


I would argue that the two wars mean Europe has already done its part to reduce its population.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> I would argue that the two wars mean Europe has already done its part to reduce its population.


True. And, if you were to subtract the births of Muslim populations in Europe, many European countries have already dropped to below the replenishing rates for births. So in a sense, they are already doing this themselves. But one could also argue, then, that they already seem okay with the reduction of their population, so they make a very attractive first choice.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> True. And, if you were to subtract the births of Muslim populations in Europe, many European countries have already dropped to below the replenishing rates for births. So in a sense, they are already doing this themselves. But one could also argue, then, that they already seem okay with the reduction of their population, so they make a very attractive first choice.


The real answer to the problem is obviously to ask everyone to choose to be gay.


----------



## Ukko

/\ Hah. Maybe the sticking point involves methods?


----------



## Igneous01

so is global warming suddenly in again? I bought the idea once, then I saw what the scientific community had to say about it, and I have not considered it since. (if this thread isnt about global warming, then skip this rant)

There is no doubt climate change is occurring, but to factor in how much of it is caused by humans is fairly negligible. I will stick to the idea that the earth is entering a new cycle and that this process has been going on since the Earth had created its atmosphere. Changes in the magnetosphere are probably the biggest culprit to this change in my opinion (which I may be wrong).

and:

why no GEOTHERMAL???


----------



## Guest

^Yes, the earth is entering a new cycle - this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius!


----------



## Igneous01

we must celebrate this transition to Aquarius by playing Dvorak's Stabat Mater


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> so is global warming suddenly in again? I bought the idea once, then I saw what the scientific community had to say about it, and I have not considered it since. (if this thread isnt about global warming, then skip this rant)
> 
> There is no doubt climate change is occurring, but to factor in how much of it is caused by humans is fairly negligible. I will stick to the idea that the earth is entering a new cycle and that this process has been going on since the Earth had created its atmosphere. Changes in the magnetosphere are probably the biggest culprit to this change in my opinion (which I may be wrong).
> 
> and:
> 
> why no GEOTHERMAL???


Oh dear, you obviously _haven't_ seen what the scientific community thinks about it. Interesting that you're just going to "stick to [your] idea" and base your perspective on an opinion about the about the magnetosphere.

In my opinion, the world is flat and I'm perfectly entitled to think that.


----------



## Igneous01

Thats fine with me, but I would like to see some information about what the scientific community thinks about global warming, because I suspect it has not changed much (unless you prove me wrong of course).

The main fault of the argument is that it does not really explain or take into account the various Ice ages this planet has already gone through. And if you compare the climate of today with the climate of the Triassic/Jurassic era, then it was much hotter around back then than it was today. I fail to see how the human race can influence the climate to that kind of extent. Thats why Im not buying the argument.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Oh dear, you obviously _haven't_ seen what the scientific community thinks about it. Interesting that you're just going to "stick to [your] idea" and base your perspective on an opinion about the about the magnetosphere.
> 
> *In my opinion, the world is flat and I'm perfectly entitled to think that*.


Might I strongly warn you, then, AGAINST any cruises? I'd hate for you to fall off the earth!

And lately we have seen what the scientific community thinks about it - they think that opponents who dare to question them should be silenced and be blackballed from any consideration by the major scientific journals.


----------



## Igneous01

I am going to take the geologists side when it comes to Global Warming, here is an interesting article from the geologists perspective about the issue: http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62



> A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware of). The first of these is that the planet has never been this cool. There is abundant fossil evidence to support this - from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossils in sedimentary rocks of the far north. This is hardly the first warming period in the earth's history. The present global warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much "on schedule."
> 
> One thing, for sure, is that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry). No environmental conference, such as Kyoto, has ever invited a geologist, a paleontologist, a paleo-climatologist. It would seem beneficial for any scientific investigatory to include such scientific disciplines.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Might I strongly warn you, then, AGAINST any cruises? I'd hate for you to fall off the earth!
> 
> And lately we have seen what the scientific community thinks about it - they think that opponents who dare to question them should be silenced and be blackballed from any consideration by the major scientific journals.


When you and _Igneous_ are wandering around in your underwear to avoid heat exhaustion, you can still proclaim "It ain't _my_ fault." Will probably ease your minds.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> And lately we have seen what the scientific community thinks about it - they think that opponents who dare to question them should be silenced and be blackballed from any consideration by the major scientific journals.


Yeah, well the major opponents are in the fossil fuel industry, so considering the gigantic conflict of interest here, they can hardly be taken seriously.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> When you and _Igneous_ are wandering around in your underwear to avoid heat exhaustion, you can still proclaim "It ain't _my_ fault." Will probably ease your minds.


If I was worried about the heat, I wouldn't have moved BACK to Alabama! And yeah, that 1 degree increase over the next 100 years is just going to push me over the edge in my heat tolerance!


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Yeah, well the major opponents are in the fossil fuel industry, so considering the gigantic conflict of interest here, they can hardly be taken seriously.


And we'll just ignore the fact that funding for climate change research would dry up immediately should the global warming experts be proven wrong. Other than that, they have no vested interest in seeing their hypotheses upheld.


----------



## Guest

^We'll also ignore the fact that people like Al Gore are heavily invested in companies that sell carbon credits and carbon offsets - the snake oil of the environmentalist movement. Pollute all you want, then pay somebody to plant a few trees for you, and you are all good. Kind of reminiscent of the Catholic church selling indulgences - get out of hell free cards! Ironic, isn't it, that these same scientists probably will criticize religion for something like that!


----------



## Igneous01

Hilltroll72 said:


> When you and _Igneous_ are wandering around in your underwear to avoid heat exhaustion, you can still proclaim "It ain't _my_ fault." Will probably ease your minds.


I only ask that you consider both sides of the argument - geologists have better reasoning to refute the human greenhouse effect. I read both arguments, and decided that the geologists have better reasoning then the theorists.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Yeah, well the major opponents are in the fossil fuel industry, so considering the gigantic conflict of interest here, they can hardly be taken seriously.


Geologists, then, are scientists that can't be trusted? Could you give me a roadmap as to which scientists can be trusted, and which cannot? Do I also get to just claim that any scientist that refutes my ideas clearly has a conflict of interest?


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> When you and _Igneous_ are wandering around in your underwear to avoid heat exhaustion, you can still proclaim "It ain't _my_ fault." Will probably ease your minds.


And Hilltroll - what makes you think I'm not doing my part? I just bought a new, more fuel-efficient car (it helped that I really liked the color, and the transmission in my old car was shot!). Why, my family in California even has solar panels on our house. Bet you would never have believed that about me! I shave my head, so I don't have to use aerosol products to spray into my hair! I don't even use shaving cream in a can, or new, wasteful mostly plastic razors - I shave with traditional shave soap and brush, and use a Gillette from the 1950's that uses the old double-edge blades! I try to fart as little as possible, to limit my methane production, and even have been know to take Bean-o from time to time and Gas-X. And I recycle my pipette tip boxes in my lab! Why, I am as green as green can be!


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Geologists, then, are scientists that can't be trusted? Could you give me a roadmap as to which scientists can be trusted, and which cannot? Do I also get to just claim that any scientist that refutes my ideas clearly has a conflict of interest?


I would skeptical of any so called scientific data based on the result of "studies" funded by oil/gas/coal companies or the think tanks they finance.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> And Hilltroll - what makes you think I'm not doing my part? I just bought a new, more fuel-efficient car (it helped that I really liked the color, and the transmission in my old car was shot!). Why, my family in California even has solar panels on our house. Bet you would never have believed that about me! I shave my head, so I don't have to use aerosol products to spray into my hair! I don't even use shaving cream in a can, or new, wasteful mostly plastic razors - I shave with traditional shave soap and brush, and use a Gillette from the 1950's that uses the old double-edge blades! I try to fart as little as possible, to limit my methane production, and even have been know to take Bean-o from time to time and Gas-X. And I recycle my pipette tip boxes in my lab! Why, I am as green as green can be!


Ahem. Thus the "It ain't my fault" will be less apt to make your nose grow.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ahem. Thus the "It ain't my fault" will be less apt to make your nose grow.


I'm actually looking forward to Alaska having a more inviting climate, and less encumbered by brutal polar bears! I have heard it is beautiful up there! And I wouldn't mind an Antarctica that is a little more human-friendly.

By the way, only 1 post to go!!!!!


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I'm actually looking forward to Alaska having a more inviting climate, and less encumbered by brutal polar bears! I have heard it is beautiful up there! And I wouldn't mind an Antarctica that is a little more human-friendly.
> 
> By the way, only 1 post to go!!!!!


Oh lord, I'm waiting in a frenzy of anticipation!


----------



## Polednice

He's gone offline at 1,999 posts, obviously to keep us on the edge of our seats. My guess is that Korean Kim will unleash his nuclear warheads.


----------



## Igneous01

starthrower said:


> I would skeptical of any so called scientific data based on the result of "studies" funded by oil/gas/coal companies or the think tanks they finance.


in this case its irrelevant who they are funded by, the fact still remains that the earth was much hotter in previous stages (Cretaceous, Triassic, Jurassic, etc) then it is now. Most people are only taking in the evidence that over the past 150 years or so the temperature is increasing, and are not considering the temperature from the millions to the billions of years ago. Or that there was a mini-ice age during the medieval period 1300-1500?

I dont support oil companies, but I support the geologists that may/may not work with them - there is more evidence disproving human intervention as main cause of warming then there is for it.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> He's gone offline at 1,999 posts, obviously to keep us on the edge of our seats. My guess is that Korean Kim will unleash his nuclear warheads.


Nah - I have my settings set to hide when I am online. You never know when DrMike is around!

And here we are at 2000. Nope, I didn't implode - but I am leaving. Anybody who has followed the Political Junkies group (the few of you left who still do) will know that I have been planning to end my participation here this week. I handed over the moderation of that group to science, so please continue to ignore it as much as you have.

I'm going out swinging here in a political thread, because would you expect any less of me? It would seem inappropriate if I were to declare my leaving in, say, the opera subforum. And I won't waste anybody's time creating YET ANOTHER good-bye thread. Those who know me, or follow anything I have written, are more than likely to see me here. It has been a fun, and rocky, 2 years over here. That is usually my shelf life in these forums. I'm sure there will be numerous tears shed over my departure. Although I am leaving, my account will stay open, because they tend to not cancel accounts here. But while I can't promise I'll never come back and see if anybody "liked" an old post of mine, or sent me a PM, I wouldn't count on it.

Adieu.


----------



## Igneous01

one last thing I want to post:


----------



## Fsharpmajor

He's wrong when he says that halving carbon dioxide would end all plant life. For that to happen it needs to fall below a concentration known as the compensation point, which takes into account photosynthesis, photorespiration and normal respiration--all of which happen simultaneously when sunlight is present. The compensation point varies depending on the individual plant species, and which type of photosynthesis it has, but it's always far lower than half of the present-day level.

I hope his geology is better than his physiology.


----------



## starthrower

Some facts about Ian Plimer's business interests:

He is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe,[7] CBH Resources[7] and Kefi Minerals.[8] In 2010, he was appointed chairperson of the board for TNT Mines Limited.[9][10] He is also listed as a director of Australia-based coal gas company Ormil Energy.[11]

In 2008 and 2009, according to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over A$400,000 from these interests, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[12] Plimer rejects claims of a conflict between his commercial mining interests and his view that man-made climate change is a myth.[7]

Why don't I find this surprising?


----------



## Rasa

Climate changes. It always has. I'm not concerned.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

starthrower said:


> He is also listed as a director of Australia-based coal gas company Ormil Energy.


And here I wondered why he thought carbon dioxide was "dangerously low." Turns out he's being deliberately misleading.


----------



## jalex

Rasa said:


> Climate changes. It always has. I'm not concerned.


Not concerned that the current climate change is going to **** everything up if we don't do anything about it?


----------



## Igneous01

@ fsharpmajor and starthrower

you still have not addressed the fact that the Earth has undergone plenty of cycles and fluctuations of climate change. How does human intervention of co2 emissions from the last 100 years have any comparison to the thousand year cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth? And why are we only taking into account the last 100 years or so of climate changes? Why are you not considering the overall change of climate from the last 1000 years or more? Do you honestly believe dinosaurs would survive in the current climate of today?

As far as I can tell, if you believe human intervention has significantly attributed to the warming of the planet, then by this logic natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate are at most INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE compared to our intervention. You cant believe that Ice Ages existed on this planet with that line of thinking. 

When the Earth changes, it changes BIG, and our intervention of the last 100 years or so is nowhere near comparison to the natural climate cooling and warming that the Earth has undergone the last billion years.


----------



## Ukko

Igneous01 said:


> @ fsharpmajor and starthrower
> 
> you still have not addressed the fact that the Earth has undergone plenty of cycles and fluctuations of climate change. How does human intervention of co2 emissions from the last 100 years have any comparison to the thousand year cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth? And why are we only taking into account the last 100 years or so of climate changes? Why are you not considering the overall change of climate from the last 1000 years or more? Do you honestly believe dinosaurs would survive in the current climate of today?
> 
> As far as I can tell, if you believe human intervention has significantly attributed to the warming of the planet, then by this logic natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate are at most INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE compared to our intervention. You cant believe that Ice Ages existed on this planet with that line of thinking.
> 
> When the Earth changes, it changes BIG, and our intervention of the last 100 years or so is nowhere near comparison to the natural climate cooling and warming that the Earth has undergone the last billion years.


Yes Dinosaurs could survive in today's climate. They were warm blooded beasties.

Certainly there have been heatings and coolings. If they are gradual enough, life adapts. The rapid ones are another story. This has several indicators of being a rapid one, and other suggestions that it will be gradual.

You logic re:

"As far as I can tell, if you believe human intervention has significantly attributed to the warming of the planet, then by this logic natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate are at most INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE compared to our intervention. You cant believe that Ice Ages existed on this planet with that line of thinking." 

...is really bad. INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE are unsupported conclusions.

"When the earth changes" it is sometimes big, and sometimes not so big. I believe you mentioned "The Little Ice Age"? That was a not-so-big one.

BTW the Earth _has_ been much cooler than it is now; what on earth are you referring to?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> Do you honestly believe dinosaurs would survive in the current climate of today?


Actually, according to the best of current thinking, they can, and they do, because birds are dinosaurs. But mainly I am criticizing Plimer's wrong-headed take on photosynthesis. To put it bluntly, he has no idea what he's talking about, and that needs to be said.

EDIT: Hilltroll is right about dinosaurs being warm-blooded.


----------



## Polednice

From the outset, I shall say that I am out of my depth talking about the scientific data that supports man-made global warming. I just do what I think most laymen ought to do: follow scientific consensus. The consensus is that global warming is significantly affected by human activity. There are debates and there are opponents, but these are fringe elements, and fringe opinions are rarely reliable.

_However_, I think there is an _extremely_ important hypothetical under all this that is much, much more important than the question of whether or not humans are the cause of global warming. What everyone on every side of the debate can (/has to) accept is the simple fact that the change _is_ happening. The average global temperature _has_ increased. A huge swathe of the planet's ice _has_ melted in the past few decades. And the trend continues. This means that, whether we like it or not, we and other species _are_ in danger.

Personally, I am glad that the consensus is that we are the cause of global warming because, if we are, that means we can actually do something to stop it (whether we will is another question). If we're not the cause, then the trend will continue regardless and - just for starters - thousands of people will be flooded like never before. *So, even if you don't think we're the cause of global warming through our emissions, do you still believe that we should actively be researching technologies that may help us in the fight against the effects of global warming?*


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> @ fsharpmajor and starthrower
> 
> you still have not addressed the fact that the Earth has undergone plenty of cycles and fluctuations of climate change. How does human intervention of co2 emissions from the last 100 years have any comparison to the thousand year cycles of warming and cooling of the Earth? And why are we only taking into account the last 100 years or so of climate changes? Why are you not considering the overall change of climate from the last 1000 years or more? Do you honestly believe dinosaurs would survive in the current climate of today?
> 
> As far as I can tell, if you believe human intervention has significantly attributed to the warming of the planet, then by this logic natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate are at most INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE compared to our intervention. You cant believe that Ice Ages existed on this planet with that line of thinking.
> 
> When the Earth changes, it changes BIG, and our intervention of the last 100 years or so is nowhere near comparison to the natural climate cooling and warming that the Earth has undergone the last billion years.


First:

"Why are you not considering the overall change of climate from the last 1000 years or more?"

1000 years is the context that scientists have largely considered. Consider the well known plot below:










The temperature increase is not extremely large, but the rate is very high compared with anything that has been observed before human industry began releasing greenhouse gases. We have a 1 degree centigrade change in 100 years. By contrast, the range of variation in the last million years is believed to be no more than 5 degrees. If the rate of temperature increase continues the earth could see average temperatures that haven't been seen for millions of years.

and

"As far as I can tell, if you believe human intervention has significantly attributed to the warming of the planet, then by this logic natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate are at most INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE compared to our intervention. You cant believe that Ice Ages existed on this planet with that line of thinking."

The temperature has gone down over geological time periods because the development of life caused enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses to be stored underground. Now we are releasing a large fraction of that material, and are simply reversing the natural evolution of the atmosphere and planet. Natural and human mechanisms of climate change are similar in magnitude, although human intervention happened over a much shorter time. This makes it more difficult for life to adapt.


----------



## Igneous01

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yes Dinosaurs could survive in today's climate. They were warm blooded beasties.


I dont see how dinosaurs are warm blooded when they are apart of the reptilian family which is cold blooded. Modern birds have taken a long time to evolve from their ancient ancestors.



Hilltroll72 said:


> Certainly there have been heatings and coolings. If they are gradual enough, life adapts. The rapid ones are another story. This has several indicators of being a rapid one, and other suggestions that it will be gradual.


I dont deny that, it could go either way, life has always found a way to adapt, even when it comes to extreme changes. Our past and the fact that we are alive shows us this.



Hilltroll72 said:


> You logic re:
> 
> ...is really bad. INSIGNIFICANT and NEGLIGIBLE are unsupported conclusions.


I fail to see that statement as being dismissed as simply bad, it was intended as a thought experiment.

If you really believe that our intervention from the past 100 years has this huge impact on our climate compared to the Earth's natural climate cycles, then how can you believe that large and small fluctuations (like the mini ice age of medieval times) could even possibly happen and effect climate much more than today, knowing that there was no human intervention present?



Hilltroll72 said:


> "When the earth changes" it is sometimes big, and sometimes not so big. I believe you mentioned "The Little Ice Age"? That was a not-so-big one.


ok, you caught me with bad word play on the earth changes big - I give you that, my mistake. I was simply trying to exaggerate so that the points of argument were more apparent. Touche 



Hilltroll72 said:


> BTW the Earth _has_ been much cooler than it is now; what on earth are you referring to?


I never said that the Earth has never been cooler than now - I completely agree with that statement (never said anything against it) not sure where you got that from???

The mini Ice-Age only lasted a few hundred years, and it did not gradually 'creep in' from thousands of years of slow change, otherwise there would be no reason to document it as being an event of extreme importance by that gradient of change. It 'popped up' very quickly and by our terms, dramatically lowered temperatures (as to how much of the globe was effected is still under study and debate, so I wont assume anything here)

So, really, how do you factor in and compare our interventions over the last 100 years or so, to the events that transpired during the mini-iceAge? The mini-Ice Age was far more dramatic in change then what we are experiencing now.

What about the Earth's rotation around the sun? It also experiences cycles of circular and oval orbits extending thousands of years, there are also times when the Earth tilts more than average - does this not effect climate change in dramatic ways?

Are factors such as the Earth's core rotation, the strength of the Earths magnetic field, the movement of poles, and geo-thermal activity caused by volcanoes simply not taken into consideration? Do these events really only effect our climate in the minute of scales? Is weather really that simple that co2 = temperature?


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> First:
> 
> 1000 years is the context that scientists have largely considered. Consider the well known plot below:
> 
> The temperature increase is not extremely large, but the rate is very high compared with anything that has been observed before human industry began releasing greenhouse gases. We have a 1 degree centigrade change in 100 years. By contrast, the range of variation in the last million years is believed to be no more than 5 degrees. If the rate of temperature increase continues the earth could see average temperatures that haven't been seen for millions of years.
> 
> The temperature has gone down over geological time periods because the development of life caused enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses to be stored underground. Now we are releasing a large fraction of that material, and are simply reversing the natural evolution of the atmosphere and planet. Natural and human mechanisms of climate change are similar in magnitude, although human intervention happened over a much shorter time. This makes it more difficult for life to adapt.


Just letting you know I have read your arguments, and before I respond, I will take a look at more research material and formulate some sort of response. I dont want to blindly reply without any thought of a counter argument, and I admit, your argument is good.

I will respond soon enough.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> I dont see how dinosaurs are warm blooded when they are apart of the reptilian family which is cold blooded. Modern birds have taken a long time to evolve from their ancient ancestors.


Read this, it's a reasonably good explanation of the subject:

*http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html*

This isn't simply a digression on my part--if you know your geology, but not your biology, you only have, at best, one half of the story.


----------



## Igneous01

@Scarpia

to respond to your graph, here is another graph that represents temperature deviations based on non-tree ring studies in 18 different sites using mathematical models. It shows the trend from 2000 years to about 1930s.









here is the full study: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

As you can see this graph conflicts with your graph  
It may not show the trend after 1930's (which is of course the meat of this topic) but it does show very different temperature variations from past 1000 years compared to yours. Im not going to argue which model was better, im in no position to do that (but I believe we need a better climate model that also accounts historical data as well as theoretical)

as for second argument:

That is not the primary factor for temperatures being lowered on Earth, while absence of co2 stored underground contributes to cooling, it is not the major cause of it. Earth's cycles of orbit and changes in tilt are the primary forces that cause cooling effects by way of increasing/decreasing distance from sun. They are estimated to happen (35000 years for tilt changes, 100000 years for orbital changes) which coincides with estimated times of ice ages and global cooling.

So, co2 should not be considered the primary culprit of climate change - it is indeed a culprit, but there are far more large influences on climate then just co2 levels.

edit**

here is another graph showing ocean sediments and trends in climate. It confirms the Milankovitch cycles and shows that the fluctuations of climate on earth have been getting stronger, and that the Earth was/is cooling after its formation.


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> Read this, it's a reasonably good explanation of the subject:
> 
> *http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html*
> 
> This isn't simply a digression on my part--if you know your geology, but not your biology, you only have, at best, one half of the story.


I never denied birds are not dinosaurs, ancient ancestors referred explicitly to dinosaurs. What was meant that modern birds which evolved from their ancient dinosaur counterparts have come a long way to adapting to current climate. Perhaps because of their ability to fly is the reason why they have been more successful in cooler climates then crocodiles and other land reptiles.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> Earth's cycles of orbit and changes in tilt are the primary forces that cause cooling effects by way of increasing/decreasing distance from sun. They are estimated to happen (35000 years for tilt changes, 100000 years for orbital changes) which coincides with estimated times of ice ages and global cooling.
> 
> So, co2 should not be considered the primary culprit of climate change - it is indeed a culprit, but there are far more large influences on climate then just co2 levels.


Changes in the Earth's precession and orbital distance are very gradual and long-term processes, though, and pretty much negligible in terms of even the timespan of human history, never mind the interval which has elapsed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35%, almost all of it due to human activity.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> Earth's cycles of orbit and changes in tilt are the primary forces that cause cooling effects by way of increasing/decreasing distance from sun. They are estimated to happen (35000 years for tilt changes, 100000 years for orbital changes) which coincides with estimated times of ice ages and global cooling.
> 
> So, co2 should not be considered the primary culprit of climate change - it is indeed a culprit, but there are far more large influences on climate then just co2 levels.


Changes in the Earth's precession and orbital distance are very gradual and long-term processes, though, and pretty much negligible in terms of even the timespan of human history, never mind the short interval which has elapsed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35%, almost all of it due to human activity.

Volcanoes, the commonly named culprits, are not responsible for it. They don't burn carbon-based fuels, apart from when they ignite existing surface vegetation.

That said, there is one notable exception to the general rule about volcanoes. Can you tell us which mountain it is?


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> Changes in the Earth's precession and orbital distance are very gradual and long-term processes, though, and pretty much negligible in terms of even the timespan of human history, never mind the short interval which has elapsed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35%, almost all of it due to human activity.
> 
> Volcanoes, the commonly named culprits, are not responsible for it. They don't burn carbon-based fuels, apart from when they ignite existing surface vegetation.
> 
> That said, there is one notable exception to the general rule about volcanoes. Can you tell us which mountain it is?


unfortunately I dont know which mountain it is. Care to reveal this? 

is your statement taking into account all volcanoes? Or just surface volcanoes? because there is an estimated 4 million volcanoes on this planet, majority of them residing on the sea bottom, and are very active.


----------



## jalex

Milankovitch theory (fluctuations in solar radiation distribution due to the Earth's orbit) alone isn't enough to account for the past fluctuations in temperature. Greenhouse effect feedback has to be taken in to account as well to make the maths fit.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> Perhaps because of their ability to fly is the reason why they have been more successful in cooler climates then crocodiles and other land reptiles.


It isn't quite as simple as that. Crocodiles have efficient, four-chambered hearts, like mammals and birds--but they aren't warm-blooded. Pythons don't have four-chambered hearts, but gestating females of some species become more or less warm-blooded when incubating their eggs.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous, if you could offer a response to my post on the previous page, #53, I'd be very interested. If you don't want to, let me know and I'll stop looking back for a reply.


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> Igneous, if you could offer a response to my post on the previous page, #53, I'd be very interested. If you don't want to, let me know and I'll stop looking back for a reply.


In terms of researching technology to fight it - I dont think it is possible, no such technology exists nor would it be beneficial to start reversing climate fluctuations. However, technology to promoting better fuel and energy, and less pollution, then I agree, more needs to be done in the fields of Geothermal solar and wind power to improve energy levels and reduce pollution, because this is a huge problem today in our world. I dont support using oil or gasoline in cars or in heating, because there are more efficient methods. But I do not believe that global warming is a serious crisis that was caused mainly by humans that is going to lead to apocalyptic weather on this planet. The earth is warming, that is true, but to say it is going to end a majority of life in next hundred years (really, we have accurate predictions about climate in 100 years, but not for 5 day forecasts?) is simply not going to happen.

As for the original science community support: what about that news report about 30000 scientists voicing their opinions about Al Gores film saying that there is no substantial or conclusive evidence that backs up this claim? How could the community possibly be in consensus, as that completely defies the scientific method. Why is this material presented unchallenged? No scientist merely accepts theories or statements just because they are popular, scrutiny is the most important aspect of science. Nobody believed in General/Special relativity when it first came out, it was scrutinized and finally proven to be valid. That is not happening with this global warming theory. And scientists are finally starting to speak out again on the inconsistencies of the theory:


----------



## jalex

^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



> No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> It isn't quite as simple as that. Crocodiles have efficient, four-chambered hearts, like mammals and birds--but they aren't warm-blooded. Pythons don't have four-chambered hearts, but gestating females of some species become more or less warm-blooded when incubating their eggs.


interesting, but, has there been any research that has shown warm blooded dinosaurs existed? I am not too familiar with the modern facts and theories about dinosaurs, 10 years ago raptors didnt have feathers or were to be directly related with bird species, now that is obviously very different. But I very much doubt that land dinosaurs could have survived in our modern climate, there was much more jungle/forest/vegetation around and the land was mostly composed of wet marshes and swamps with some dry areas, there wasn't any sort of winter climates that we are familiar with now.


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


I can do that too 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming



> The listed notable scientists have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of the principal conclusions of the IPCC. Each scientist has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the natural sciences. The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate. She or he has made an attributable statement of disagreement in some forum (and is not merely included on a petition, survey, or list).


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> unfortunately I dont know which mountain it is. Care to reveal this?
> 
> is your statement taking into account all volcanoes? Or just surface volcanoes? because there is an estimated 4 million volcanoes on this planet, majority of them residing on the sea bottom, and are very active.


It's Lengai Volcano, in Tanzania:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ol_Doinyo_Lengai*

Maybe Tanzania should have to pay a special carbon tax for having such a gigantic soda fountain in their country. 

But seriously, there's no reason to think that submarine volcanoes should behave any differently than terrestrial ones, which (apart from Lengai and some now-extinct cones around it), stubbornly insist on emitting very little carbon dioxide, because they don't actually burn anything.


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> It's Lengai Volcano, in Tanzania:
> 
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ol_Doinyo_Lengai*
> 
> Maybe Tanzania should have to pay a special carbon tax for having such a gigantic soda fountain in their country.
> 
> But seriously, there's no reason to think that submarine volcanoes should behave any differently than terrestrial ones, which (apart from Lengai and some now-extinct cones around it), stubbornly insist on emitting very little carbon dioxide, because they don't actually burn anything.


that is true, not all volcanoes are active, especially not all the time, they have cycles where they transition between active and inactive states. but alot of undersea volcanoes are active, because they are generally situated around the tectonic plates and deep crevices in the ocean floor, geothermals are much more active at the sea bottom, which can be examined by all the marine life that exists at these large depths. Temperature was also measured on the sea bottom to be warmer than the temperature of the sea on top. A consequence to add to the discovery of these volcanoes, is that there are volcanoes estimated to be roughly the size of mount everest that are in passive-active states. These volcanoes generally emit alot of co2 and other various gases which may/may not rise to the top or be trapped in some caverns or gas bubbles. Alot of the ocean heat is constituted by these underground volcanoes doing their job.


----------



## jalex

Igneous01 said:


> I can do that too
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


That's more ammuition for me if anything. Notice that the list of major _organisations_ which have made statements supporting the view that AGW is a real phenomenon is larger than the list of _individuals_ who disagree. That's a consensus if I've ever seen one.


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> That's more ammuition for me if anything. Notice that the list of major _organisations_ which have made statements supporting the view that AGW is a real phenomenon is larger than the list of _individuals_ who disagree.


I didnt realize scientific method revolved around popularity votes. Just because an organization agrees with AGW, does not necessarily mean all members of the organization share the same view, they too, would have to make a consensus within their organization. There have been statements made by IPCC member scientists that are in disagreement with the theory and its predicted destruction of Earth.

I have to ask, is this science, or political science now?

but I am still confused as to how supposed accurate predictions of mass flooding are to happen in the near future, when we cant even get accurate predictions that are consistent on a 5 day forecast.


----------



## Igneous01

anyway, its been a nice debate with you all. I just wanted to say that it was very interesting and educational debating with you guys. If I bashed or insulted anyones views here I am sorry, it was not intended. There was also very good rebuttals posted here in support of AGW that I was not aware of.

I believe that debates should be civil, organized and courteous. So I would like to thank all of you for being patient and respectful to me and my arguments. I hope we all got a little something out of this that made us think differently (I know I have).

time to go for violin practice, but this debate as a whole is not over!


----------



## jalex

Igneous01 said:


> I didnt realize scientific method revolved around popularity votes.


In a sense science is all about popularity (albeit a well-informed sort of popularity) in that theories become prominent by gaining support from scientists active in the relevant fields. The 'best current theory' for a particular phenomenon will be the one with the largest support base.



> but I am still confused as to how supposed accurate predictions of mass flooding are to happen in the near future, when we cant even get accurate predictions that are consistent on a 5 day forecast.


Because it's easier to predict long term trends than short term specifics.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01;249639[MEDIA=youtube said:


> YtevF4B4RtQ[/MEDIA]


Yeah, that video is still kicking around, but the director has since had to retract just about everything in it regarding volcanoes.

Most of it, apart from the delicate subject of oxidative processes in volcanoes, might well be completely accurate, though.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> @Scarpia
> 
> to respond to your graph, here is another graph that represents temperature deviations based on non-tree ring studies in 18 different sites using mathematical models. It shows the trend from 2000 years to about 1930s.


I noticed that the referring web page contained a lot of _very _partisan language about how global warming is a conspiracy, which always makes me skeptical. However, the graph you have shown is actually pretty consistent with the one I showed. Your graph ends in 1930, which is before the major temperature rise occurred. Of course it doesn't show the recent up-tick.

There was a lot of hot air about how the "hockey stick" graph was supposedly a fraud because different data was left out, given unequal weight, etc. But leaving out data or rescaling/reweighing data is part of the rigorous process of statistical analysis. Recently the same data set was reanalyzed by an independent group, and although their procedure was different in detail, the result came out the same.



Igneous01 said:


> here is the full study: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
> 
> As you can see this graph conflicts with your graph
> It may not show the trend after 1930's (which is of course the meat of this topic) but it does show very different temperature variations from past 1000 years compared to yours. Im not going to argue which model was better, im in no position to do that (but I believe we need a better climate model that also accounts historical data as well as theoretical)
> 
> as for second argument:
> 
> That is not the primary factor for temperatures being lowered on Earth, while absence of co2 stored underground contributes to cooling, it is not the major cause of it. Earth's cycles of orbit and changes in tilt are the primary forces that cause cooling effects by way of increasing/decreasing distance from sun. They are estimated to happen (35000 years for tilt changes, 100000 years for orbital changes) which coincides with estimated times of ice ages and global cooling.
> 
> So, co2 should not be considered the primary culprit of climate change - it is indeed a culprit, but there are far more large influences on climate then just co2 levels.
> 
> edit**
> 
> here is another graph showing ocean sediments and trends in climate. It confirms the Milankovitch cycles and shows that the fluctuations of climate on earth have been getting stronger, and that the Earth was/is cooling after its formation.


You are correct that those cyclical processes can produce very large temperature shifts. However, look at the time axes, those changes take hundreds of thousands of years. The recent temperature rise is much faster than those processes, even if the total temperature change to date is not as large.

The speed of the process is very important from a biological point of view. If the world gets warmer and the US midwest becomes too warm to grow corn and wheat, then we'll grow it in Canada, you might think. Except Canada does not have the soil to grow corn and wheat.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> interesting, but, has there been any research that has shown warm blooded dinosaurs existed?


With all due respect, this subject is pretty much beyond dispute by now. What conceivable reason is there for you to think that dinosaurs (and pterosaurs in particular) were cold-blooded?


----------



## Igneous01

ok, there are obviously alot of responses since I came back, before I try to respond to them, this will be the last video clip I will link:





This was a debate between climate forces and IPCC (for and against AGW) and yet, I found their responses correlating with mine.

-Both stated that life is sustainable at 600ppm of co2 in Earths atmosphere (supposed line is supposed to 350ppm, we are past that)
-Both admitted that the graphs and figures used (the one Scarpia and myself posted) now to predict and explain climate change have limitations, both address that the graphs used are bound to a local area studied, and do not account/explain or correlate with temperature studies conducted in other continents of the world. (The guy from IPCC states that the Artic has extreme fluctuations of 10 degrees or more in its cycle)
-Both state that NASA's simplification of solar activity not effecting climate is overly-simplified, and begs to ask questions as to how these numbers and observations were tallied. Both are in agreement that Ice Ages were caused by changes in Earth orbit and tilt, not by co2 levels.

I find it funny how this supposed panic of climate change that will bring about destruction to the Earth is not even supported by both parties (For and Against AGW). It is an exaggeration, the effects are not even remotely close to the extremities predicted in public view of future climate. Both state that the research presented to the public is over simplified, is unclear with many questions, and at times contradictory to what is actually measured and estimated.

Just some food for thought for us all.


----------



## mmsbls

I have seen many discussions about climate change. If someone wants to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), it's easy to find support for that view. If one wants to disbelieve in AGW, it's easy to find support for that view as well. As a scientist, I'm only interested in one group's view - research scientists who write peer-reviewed papers in climate change journals and who regularly attend climate change conferences. All other people likely do not have a deep understanding of the technical issues in the field.



Igneous01 said:


> -Both stated that life is sustainable at 600ppm of co2 in Earths atmosphere (supposed line is supposed to 350ppm, we are past that)
> 
> I find it funny how this supposed panic of climate change that will bring about destruction to the Earth is not even supported by both parties (For and Against AGW).


I have read widely about climate change and never seen any climate scientist say life could not exist at 600 ppm CO2. I have never read anyone suggesting that humans would become extinct or that the destruction of the earth was even possible due to AGW. We are not concerned with those things. We are concerned that climate will change enough to cause enormous hardship for large numbers of people.



Igneous01 said:


> but I am still confused as to how supposed accurate predictions of mass flooding are to happen in the near future, when we cant even get accurate predictions that are consistent on a 5 day forecast.


As a physicist, it's straightforward to understand how predictions of global average temperatures are much, much easier to estimate than predictions of local weather 5 days from now. There are fewer relevant variables and the physics is simpler for predicting global average temperatures. A simple Google search can supply many websites that explain this feature. Almost everyone could predict the average high temperature in their city for the month of January 10 years from now better than they could predict the high temperature 7 days from now. It is much easier to predict the average lifespan of people in the US 20 years from now than to predict when given individuals will die.

Climate science is extremely complicated and easily misunderstood. Looking at a few talks, graphs, or summaries is likely to mislead those on both sides of the issue.


----------



## Igneous01

mmsbls said:


> I have seen many discussions about climate change. If someone wants to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), it's easy to find support for that view. If one wants to disbelieve in AGW, it's easy to find support for that view as well. As a scientist, I'm only interested in one group's view - research scientists who write peer-reviewed papers in climate change journals and who regularly attend climate change conferences. All other people likely do not have a deep understanding of the technical issues in the field.


I am also in accordance with this view, that includes both researchers that have found evidence that both compliment and contradict the theory.



> I have read widely about climate change and never seen any climate scientist say life could not exist at 600 ppm CO2. I have never read anyone suggesting that humans would become extinct or that the destruction of the earth was even possible due to AGW. We are not concerned with those things. We are concerned that climate will change enough to cause enormous hardship for large numbers of people.


That is what I have been trying to say for the most part of this thread, there were some responses here claiming that we are F**ked if we dont change now or that we wont be alive in the next 20 years. Obviously this is not the issue.



> As a physicist, it's straightforward to understand how predictions of global average temperatures are much, much easier to estimate than predictions of local weather 5 days from now. There are fewer relevant variables and the physics is simpler for predicting global average temperatures. A simple Google search can supply many websites that explain this feature. Almost everyone could predict the average high temperature in their city for the month of January 10 years from now better than they could predict the high temperature 7 days from now. It is much easier to predict the average lifespan of people in the US 20 years from now than to predict when given individuals will die.


Makes sense, taking an average is easier than taking individual accounts that include more uncertainty and many other variables that are difficult to track or estimate. I agree with this. However I do not agree of certain predictions that are apocalyptic.



> Climate science is extremely complicated and easily misunderstood. Looking at a few talks, graphs, or summaries is likely to mislead those on both sides of the issue.


Exactly what I have been stating for this entire thread, it is a very complicated process that is tied into multiple factors and forces, not just co2 levels. Graphs of CO2 levels, especially localized ones relating to one area, are not enough to suggest anything on a global scale. Satellite data will be a more accurate presentation of global mean temperatures and sea level.

However if I am going to take a stand on the issue, then I would stand with both Lindzen (professor of meteorology) and Hadi (professor of mathematics & chairmen of research and a member of ICPP) in this case, as their arguments do not show such exaggerations on the topic, and relate to my thoughts as well on the issue.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> I am also in accordance with this view, that includes both researchers that have found evidence that both compliment and contradict the theory.


As I understanding it, he was saying just the opposite. If you look at the internet you will find plausible-sounding arguments supporting both views. Unless the report is a paper that appeared in a refereed scientific journal on climate science, you should assume the argument has absolutely zero reliability and ignore it. Reports that appear in refereed climate science journals contain a huge preponderance of evidence in favor of human-caused global warming. There is vigorous debate as to what the future course of climate change will be because that depends on the details of the models being used to predict the future. But as to what is happening now, with measured levels of greenhouse gasses, measured carbon emissions, and measured climate change, there is little doubt that we are seeing climate change and that it is caused by human activity.

An interesting case is the "hockey-stock" graph, which deniers widely claimed was a fake. A prominent scientist from UC Berkeley also expressed some skepticism, but undertook an independent analysis of the same data set. Although the results were different in detail from the original analysis, the basic result was confirmed.


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> As I understanding it, he was saying just the opposite. If you look at the internet you will find plausible-sounding arguments supporting both views. Unless the report is a paper that appeared in a refereed scientific journal on climate science, you should assume the argument has absolutely zero reliability and ignore it. Reports that appear in refereed climate science journals contain a huge preponderance of evidence in favor of human-caused global warming. There is vigorous debate as to what the future course of climate change will be because that depends on the details of the models being used to predict the future. But as to what is happening now, with measured levels of greenhouse gasses, measured carbon emissions, and measured climate change, there is little doubt that we are seeing climate change and that it is caused by human activity.


There has been data represented that both contradict the theory and compliment, there has also been alot of questions and skepticism on these data sets as well. You cant simply ignore data sets that may question certain aspects of the theory for the reason that they do. That is simplifying the issue. It's not just about co2 levels, there is also radiant forcing to account for, the behavior of clouds as either positive or negative feedback loops, wind patterns, effects on photosynthesis in co2 infested regions (like China) and possibly solar radiation. Then theres the factors that we do not understand, such as the Earth's core rotation and activity, and geothermal levels. Not all of these areas studied correlate with research found in other areas.

So, whether or not you think my arguments are just construed pieces of information found on the internet based on no understanding of climate by people who are not qualified to speak on the subject or not, is your opinion. If you think someone like Lindzen who is an expert on meteorology is also not reliable for information, that is of course your choice to do so.

However, until I see correlations with the stated factors above, I will not change my position on the issue anytime soon.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> effects on photosynthesis in co2 infested regions (like China)


What do you mean by that?


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> What do you mean by that?


well since China is now become very industrialized and has taken a majority of the industry under its control, it obviously is spouting out alot of co2 from its factories. So there are some questions as to what the effects of co2 in that region effect the photosynthesis of plants in that surrounding region also. Clouds are formed in part by aerosols in the atmosphere, which include co2, and so in sense this large amount of co2 in that region should also be forming alot of clouds. Clouds also help reflect solar radiation back to space, but thin cloud layers help store heat from escaping the Earth (so they present both positive and negative feedbacks to the climate system)

As to how this abundant resource of co2 effects photosynthesis of plants via either reducing sunlight by alot of cloud forming or enhancing it by there being alot of co2 available to use by plants or even some other unknown phenomena needs to be examined. Changes in vegetation and photosynthesis can also effect climate in those regions (much like how rainforests effect a large area of climate) and so we are still not really sure whether the effects of co2 have hindered plant life, and whether the effects of plant life have altered climate in those regions.


----------



## Ukko

_Igneous_, you seem to be confusing one aspect of carbon dioxide's effect with another. The 'greenhouse' effect' and how plants 'breathe' are two different things.

Focus; you gotta focus, guy.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Carbon dioxide doesn't form either aerosols or visible clouds. I think you must be confusing it with the emission of solid particulates that results from burning coal (which is a health hazard in heavily industrialized areas of China).

Higher levels of carbon dioxide are only beneficial to plant growth when everything else (including temperature, water, sunlight, and mineral nutrient supply) is optimal. This is rarely the case in agricultural situations--the main exception being hydroponic growth of crops in greenhouses. Under near-ideal conditions such as that, CO2 supplementation can indeed boost yields, but you are very unlikely to find this happening in the rice paddies of India and China.

LATER EDIT: A simple analogy is trying to raise up your kid by boosting carbohydrate supply to compensate for insufficient protein--which, of course, doesn't work, because in such a situation nitrogen, not carbon, is the limiting factor.


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> Carbon dioxide doesn't form either aerosols or visible clouds. I think you must be confusing it with the emission of solid particulates that results from burning coal (which is a health hazard in heavily industrialized areas of China).
> 
> Higher levels of carbon dioxide are only beneficial to plant growth when everything else (including temperature, water, sunlight, and mineral nutrient supply) is optimal. This is rarely the case in agricultural situations--the main exception being hydroponic growth of crops in greenhouses. Under near-ideal conditions such as that, CO2 supplementation can indeed boost yields, but you are very unlikely to find this happening in the rice paddies of India and China.


look at my statement, I said clouds are formed in part by aerosols, including co2, that sentence does not group co2 into aerosols, otherwise i would have said, co2 is an aerosol. However I will admit it was poorly worded on my part.

Not all vegetation in china is rice paddies, and i wasnt speaking strictly from an agricultural point of view either.


----------



## Igneous01

Igneous01 said:


> look at my statement, I said clouds are formed in part by aerosols, including co2, that sentence does not group co2 into aerosols, otherwise i would have said, co2 is an aerosol. However I will admit it was poorly worded on my part.
> 
> Not all vegetation in china is rice paddies, and i wasnt speaking strictly from an agricultural point of view either.


edit**

never mind, i see where my mistake is, Yes you are right, co2 is not responsible for forming clouds. I dont know why I wrote that. You are right on that.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I had already added to and re-submitted my post before seeing your response, so the continuity might look a bit confusing--apologies, my fault.

EDIT: And again, I just missed your most recent post--sorry.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> There has been data represented that both contradict the theory and compliment, there has also been alot of questions and skepticism on these data sets as well. You cant simply ignore data sets that may question certain aspects of the theory for the reason that they do. That is simplifying the issue. It's not just about co2 levels, there is also radiant forcing to account for, the behavior of clouds as either positive or negative feedback loops, wind patterns, effects on photosynthesis in co2 infested regions (like China) and possibly solar radiation. Then theres the factors that we do not understand, such as the Earth's core rotation and activity, and geothermal levels. Not all of these areas studied correlate with research found in other areas.


My problem here is that you seem to think these little speculations here actually mean something. I should assume that you have figured these things out, and that people who spend 80 hours a week pouring over data from NASA satellites, running climate models on supercomputers with 10,000 processors, correlating the data with observation, and going to international conferences to present their data to other scientists, didn't think of it?

I am not a climate scientist. But I am a scientist, and I know that if I want to know about a certain area of science, I should seek out the opinions of people who spend every waking hour working on that problem, and who have a record of scientific productivity. I do not pay attention to anything I read in the popular press. I pay attention to things like the climate change statement from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute for Physics. They have made a serious effort to asses the state of science on the issue, taking account of how well founded these conclusion are on data, and made a public statement.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Of course, deniers will claim that the American Institute of Physics, or the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, or the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft are corrupted by politics. Scientists can decipher the human genome, find the molecular structure of the ribosome, make a computer processor that performs 10 to the 12th power mathematical operations per second. But to calculate the heat balance for a wet sphere floating in space we need to consult Newt Gingrich.


----------



## Polednice

In line with Scarpia's above post, and as has already been demonstrated on this thread a number of times, if you're not a climatologist, you're going to get things _wrong_. No matter how convincing evidence you find on the internet is; no matter how convincing you find the rhetoric of a rogue scientist; unless you have personally conducted research, perused the relevant peer-reviewed journals or at least have a degree in the subject, you have to stop yourself from being suckered in and just listen to the consensus of people like the NAS and AAAS.

Apparently, my earlier post about practicalities regardless of truth was too boring to deserve comment.  Perhaps instead our societies will be kicked into shape by a growing energy crisis. Here's a lovely little maths lecture on the problem (mixed in with population growth) that I watched at 3am last night (I'll just post the 1st of 8 parts, go to YouTube for the rest).


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> My problem here is that you seem to think these little speculations here actually mean something. I should assume that you have figured these things out, and that people who spend 80 hours a week pouring over data from NASA satellites, running climate models on supercomputers with 10,000 processors, correlating the data with observation, and going to international conferences to present their data to other scientists, didn't think of it?


I am no climatologist, nor am I scientist, nor do I have any merits for anything I say, nor am I trying to project scientific analysis since its not in my right to do so.

But for me to honestly believe that co2 is responsible for all climate change, and that human intervention is the biggest cause of climate change, and that the apocalypse is upon us in the near future, would be a grave and naive mistake for me to do so.

Whether or not consensus exists on the issue for me is irrelevant, I am more concerned with science then I am on consensus, to believe that consensus alone is considered merit is taking a step backwards in the scientific method. There is no such thing as authority to discovery and that opinions matter - either it is physically happening, or it isn't. This is not directed towards just AGW, but to any other studies as well.

So, is it physically possible that co2 is the driver of climate and that it holds this position alone? Or has there been some misunderstandings concerning specific detail and that scientists need to examine it further? While im sure a possibility exists that co2 is the sole factor, it is not something I am going to wager on.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html

This is probably the more interesting information that I have found concerning global warming that helps support it in your case. However, I am a little confused as to how they managed to conclude that the Earths core's activity is effected by co2 levels, and not the other way around. But thats not for me to discuss, I will see what others can make of this.

Please, dont count me in with the that group of fanatical deniers, because those people are on a very different level.

My position still stands: I do not believe co2 is the sole factor of climate change, nor Do I believe that humans are solely responsible for current fluctuations in climate.

I really like this:


> It is likely that
> most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
> to human activities (IPCC 2001)


They are stating that the conditions are accelerating, and yet this report from ipcc didn't even state that conditions were accelerating.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> Whether or not consensus exists on the issue for me is irrelevant, I am more concerned with science then I am on consensus, to believe that consensus alone is considered merit is taking a step backwards in the scientific method.


We all have a responsibility to think for ourselves, but where do you think the consensus comes from? It's not a load of politically motivated hacks nodding in unison. It's a consensus based on relentless, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, researched by hundreds of scientists more qualified than any of us. I trust the consensus behind medical practices because my doctors are the experts; I trust physics consensus; I trust biology consensus; why would we choose to not trust climate change consensus? Because it's inconvenient and, for some strange reason, people seem to think they need a degree to weigh in on quantum physics but don't need any education at all to have a well-informed opinion on climatology. Well that's not how it works. :/


----------



## BradPiano

Climate change is all natural and our political leaders are just freaking out about it so that you'll give your money to the government to fix it. Did the Ice Age end the world? No. And this isn't even close to the degree of severity of weather that the Ice Age was.


----------



## Polednice

BradPiano said:


> Climate change is all natural and our political leaders are just freaking out about it so that you'll give your money to the government to fix it. Did the Ice Age end the world? No. And this isn't even close to the degree of severity of weather that the Ice Age was.


What was the human population in coastal areas during the ice age?


----------



## BradPiano

Polednice said:


> What was the human population in coastal areas during the ice age?


I don't feel like debating. *sigh*


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> We all have a responsibility to think for ourselves, but where do you think the consensus comes from? It's not a load of politically motivated hacks nodding in unison. It's a consensus based on relentless, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, researched by hundreds of scientists more qualified than any of us. I trust the consensus behind medical practices because my doctors are the experts; I trust physics consensus; I trust biology consensus; why would we choose to not trust climate change consensus? Because it's inconvenient and, for some strange reason, people seem to think they need a degree to weigh in on quantum physics but don't need any education at all to have a well-informed opinion on climatology. Well that's not how it works. :/


A majority of biology and physics is in agreement because the evidence has been shown to work. While quantum physics is very much theoretical, many facets of it have been proven to be true. Proof in this case meaning physically examined.

let me ask you then:
Is there the same level of consensus with AGW, as there is in String Theory?

and to reverse what you said:
Do I not have any merits to accept what to believe? While it is true myself and many of us dont have the merits to discuss the fields of study in science, does that mean now that we have to accept everything that has been published in recent years? What happens when an article is disproven? It is not uncommon for various theories and papers to be refuted after publishing in the science community. I do not deny that climate change is happening, but I disagree with the mechanics of it, because it is made far too simple and reduced to 1 variable, greenhouse gases. The Earth's climate is complex, and cannot be reduced or deduced to just 1 variable.


----------



## jalex

Igneous01 said:


> Is there the same level of consensus with AGW, as there is in String Theory?


There is no consensus on string theory since we don't have any direct evidence for it.



> I do not deny that climate change is happening, but I disagree with the mechanics of it, because it is made far too simple and reduced to 1 variable, greenhouse gases. The Earth's climate is complex, and cannot be reduced or deduced to just 1 variable.


But the complexities _are_ taken in to account as far as possible in scientific models (you mentioned cloud screening earlier, that's a good example. Clouds reflect some radiation but also help trap it, and it can be shown that the overall effect is a slight cooling). You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of the intelligence of scientists.


----------



## Ukko

jalex said:


> There is no consensus on string theory since we don't have any direct evidence for it.
> 
> But the complexities _are_ taken in to account as far as possible in scientific models (you mentioned cloud screening earlier, that's a good example. Clouds reflect some radiation but also help trap it, and it can be shown that the overall effect is a slight cooling). You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of the intelligence of scientists.


Well, that could be influenced by a high opinion of his own. Sometimes that gets chipped away by 'life experience', sometimes not. Sometimes the guy is just plain smart.

[That last sentence has an ambiguous aspect related to its predecessors, I wish to point out.]

Merry Christmas, everyone.


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> There is no consensus on string theory since we don't have any direct evidence for it.
> 
> But the complexities _are_ taken in to account as far as possible in scientific models (you mentioned cloud screening earlier, that's a good example. Clouds reflect some radiation but also help trap it, and it can be shown that the overall effect is a slight cooling). You seem to have an incredibly low opinion of the intelligence of scientists.


well that is of course your perception and choice to believe that. I have not said anything to insult the intellect of scientists or to people here. But if you insist on filling words in my mouth, then I wont stop you.

As to the models per se, most scientists accept their limitations and that they do not accurately portray climate trends. ICPP accepts the limitations of these models, and while their is some validity in what they report, it is not enough to conclude anything as of yet. There has been cases of models conflicting with each other, and various graphs conflicting with other graphs.

So while the climate models show interesting stuff, they are not the start of and end of discussion. As has been said: Most studies and graphs of temperature and co2 have been focused only in a local area, and some of these studies were conducted in the same area as some others, which explains the overlaps. They should not be used to predict or estimate global climate trends.

To be clear: I am not dismissing the models as not showing anything, they do show interesting stuff and show some validity. But they are not accurate or built well enough to accommodate for global climate as of yet.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> My position still stands: I do not believe co2 is the sole factor of climate change, nor Do I believe that humans are solely responsible for current fluctuations in climate.


I have never heard of any scientist claiming that CO2 is the sole factor of climate change. In fact, there are other greenhouse gases such as methane that may be a stronger influence than CO2. Climate scientists are certainly aware that other factors, including variance in solar conditions, are an influence. But those influences act over very long periods of time.

What scientists have observed is a very rapid spike in concentration of greenhouse gases, a rapid spike in average temperature, both of which tracks very closely the consumption of fossil fuels. A rough, common sense calculation confirms that the extra gas emitted by human activity would be sufficient to trap the excess heat being retained by the planet. The rest is just details (such as the fact that increase in temperature causes spontaneous release of naturally trapped greenhouse gases, that changes in cloud cover could also cause variations, etc.

In my opinion, your idea that you are capable of deciding for yourself whether the work of the world-experts in the field is correct is simply delusional. You are not capable of remotely understanding the scientific evidence that you passing judgement on. If you are really interested in the subject, you should seek out the writings of the acknowledged experts and read them carefully. And if what you are reading doesn't make sense to you, it would be sensible to conclude that you are unable to understand, not that the work is wrong.

I should not that there is probably a lot of alarmist rhetoric from the other side of the spectrum that may be wrong. But I will make this point. In the past the earth climate has gone to regimes where human life would be well nigh impossible. We should be very cautious of putting into effect events that might cause those conditions to return. One of the things that has made the earth temperate is the sequestration of carbon, which we are reversing. I am uncomfortable with the idea of doing "experiments" on earth atmosphere when we have no place else to go.


----------



## Polednice

BradPiano said:


> I don't feel like debating. *sigh*


Well that's hardly surprising. Sweeping judgements and conspiracy theories tend to want to go unchallenged.

*Igneous*, I'm not sure if you were suggesting that there is a consensus on string theory. If you were, then you are much more scientifically uninformed than you have shown so far because there is no consensus at all - string theory is only a "proto-science". If you were instead suggesting that string theory has low consensus, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

With regards to other consensus in fields such as biology and physics, you say that it's because many theoretical facets have been "proven to be true", meaning "physically examined." Macro-evolution has not been (and cannot be) directly physically examined, but it is a very successful model based on indirect evidence. Quantum mechanics is an insanely counter-intuitive model, but we're confident in it because of its successful predictions. It seems that you say people reduce climatology to too simplistic a model, and yet here you are reducing the scientific process to a false dichotomy of 'theoretical' and 'proven truth', when, in fact, no matter how successful a model is, there is uncertainty in everything. Nevertheless, in between the extremes of falsehood and objective fact, we can have varying levels of confidence in a theory based on how much good (peer-reviewed) evidence there is to support it. In the case of human-caused climate change, that would be _lots_!

I am also led to question your knowledge and familiarity with the climate science done by actual _scientists_ rather than the information promoted by activists and politicians because you are flat-out wrong to say that current theories reduce our picture of climate change to being caused by the one variable of greenhouse gases. That would be simplistic, but that's not what scientists say. You're taking the most vocal debate that surrounds public policy (greenhouse gases usually being the sole thing that comes up because that's what we can most easily control), and ascribing it to a scientific model - that's unfair.

And just because I think it's an important point to ram home, I will say again that non-experts have no place to be calling out _hundreds_ of experts on their data on the basis of internet research in the absence of even looking at (let alone understanding) scientific journals. My guess about why people think they can be armchair scientists on climate change but not on quantum physics is because climate change seems more intuitive to understand. Well, newsflash: science very often is _not_ intuitive, and _almost always_, the maths underlying the science is not intuitive at all. Human intuition is an extremely poor tool. So relying on our instincts when faced with blogs and news articles and politicians and interviews is simply not enough, no matter how much we feel we can engage on the issue. _Any_ scientific consensus deserves to be respected, and this is no exception.


----------



## kv466

BradPiano said:


> Climate change is all natural and our political leaders are just freaking out about it so that you'll give your money to the government to fix it. Did the Ice Age end the world? No. And this isn't even close to the degree of severity of weather that the Ice Age was.


If ignorance is bliss,...then knock the smile off my face!


----------



## Couchie

It's all fine. When it too changed we'll change it back.


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> In my opinion, your idea that you are capable of deciding for yourself whether the work of the world-experts in the field is correct is simply delusional. You are not capable of remotely understanding the scientific evidence that you passing judgement on. If you are really interested in the subject, you should seek out the writings of the acknowledged experts and read them carefully. And if what you are reading doesn't make sense to you, it would be sensible to conclude that you are unable to understand, not that the work is wrong.





Polednice said:


> I am also led to question your knowledge and familiarity with the climate science done by actual scientists rather than the information promoted by activists and politicians because you are flat-out wrong to say that current theories reduce our picture of climate change to being caused by the one variable of greenhouse gases. That would be simplistic, but that's not what scientists say. You're taking the most vocal debate that surrounds public policy (greenhouse gases usually being the sole thing that comes up because that's what we can most easily control), and ascribing it to a scientific model - that's unfair.
> 
> And just because I think it's an important point to ram home, I will say again that non-experts have no place to be calling out hundreds of experts on their data on the basis of internet research in the absence of even looking at (let alone understanding) scientific journals. My guess about why people think they can be armchair scientists on climate change but not on quantum physics is because climate change seems more intuitive to understand. Well, newsflash: science very often is not intuitive, and almost always, the maths underlying the science is not intuitive at all. Human intuition is an extremely poor tool. So relying on our instincts when faced with blogs and news articles and politicians and interviews is simply not enough, no matter how much we feel we can engage on the issue. Any scientific consensus deserves to be respected, and this is no exception.


Well, perhaps you two should instead of questioning my credentials (which quoted above, and has been stated by me before, I HAVE NONE!) should perhaps question the credentials of the scientists that DO disagree. There is a choice here for me to make because, while a minority, there are scientists that disagree with the theory - either completely, or on different levels (like the mechanics of climate). I am not familiar with any activists or politicians in this case, I am listening/reading to those scientists that disagree and have questions about the climate models, statistics, and various short term phenomena that have contradicted certain expected trends.

While you are right Polednice - My answer to your question was rather too simple and so it does look like I was using a false dichotomy to explain things, does not mean I am reducing it to such levels. Im sorry it was such a short-sighted and simple answer, but considering this thread was about climate change, I did not want to spend a whole lot of time on it.

This is a public forum, with various peoples (including me) who have opinions on the subject. I may be in no position to argue the processes that occur in climate specifically, but I do know there are more factors than just green house gases.

So while I am in the minority, and while some scientists are also in the minority, does not mean you can dismiss their statements as being false. We will have to see what happens in the next 20-hundred years to confirm anything.

some more opposition that I found interesting:


> Dr. Robinson: Right now the UN claims that they have about 2,500 people involved in this and about 600 scientists seriously involved. This is what Al Gore would point to today.
> 
> We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who've looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.
> 
> Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn't require any advocate. It stands by itself.
> 
> In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon - unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.


full article: http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/22000-scientists-disagree-with-un-global-warming-push/
just for the record hes a chemist.


----------



## Sid James

Would people on either side of the debate, would you agree that reducing pollution (eg. carbon emissions, etc.) is a good thing, regardless of whether global warming is being caused by humans or not (or whether it is happening, etc.).

Here in Australia, our large cities have some of the worst rates of asthma in the world. Esp. children and old people are vulnerable. This is caused mainly by most people's reliance on cars in our large cities, and probably other things as well like coal fired powerstations.

So whether you believe climate change is occuring or not, the HERE and NOW is that people are suffering from pollution in the air, as well as other things, other types of pollution, etc. Moving towards renewable energies is the way to go, imo. 

Even places like China are doing it, two of the largest train stations in the world have just opened there, and entirely powered by solar energy (the solar panels on the roof of the buildings). These kinds of things are happening as we speak. There must be a fair few climate change skeptics in China, as well as people who believe in human caused climate change. The fact is, their cities are heavily polluted, the air is almost unbreathable. Rather than debating about this online or elsewhere, they are doing something about it NOW. So that's what I'm getting at, and some people on the ground here say the same thing, let's stop debating and start DOING...


----------



## Polednice

I accept that you respect the credentials of well qualified dissenting scientists, but then do you respect the credentials of the many more similarly qualified scientists who agree with the consensus? It's a simple numbers game and it sounds as though you just find the minority opinion more interesting or comforting so choose to disregard the credentials and evidence of others.


----------



## jalex

Igneous01 said:


> just for the record hes a chemist.


So what's his business talking about global warming? Do you listen to the opinions of history graduates on neo-darwinian synthesis? To accountants on the finer points of moral philosophy?


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> I accept that you respect the credentials of well qualified dissenting scientists, but then do you respect the credentials of the many more similarly qualified scientists who agree with the consensus? It's a simple numbers game and it sounds as though you just find the minority opinion more interesting or comforting so choose to disregard the credentials and evidence of others.


yes I do. Do you respect the credentials of the dissenting scientists?


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> So what's his business talking about global warming? Do you listen to the opinions of history graduates on neo-darwinian synthesis? To accountants on the finer points of moral philosophy?


So a chemist who has considerably more knowledge about co2 than most other fields of study suddenly has no say on the subject of greenhouse gases, like methane, co2, and various others (which are all chemicals that are commonly studied in chemistry)?


----------



## jalex

Igneous01 said:


> So a chemist who has considerably more knowledge about co2 than most other fields of study suddenly has no say on the subject of greenhouse gases, like methane, co2, and various others (which are all chemicals that are commonly studied in chemistry)?


He's not a climate scientist. He might know all about the _chemical_ properties of CO2 (bonding and suchlike) but they happen to be irrelevant because climate science in interested in its _physical_ properties (how it responds to radiation, for example), never mind the complex physical factors involved in modelling the entire environment.

Anyway, I doubt he disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> He's not a climate scientist. He might know all about the _chemical_ properties of CO2 (bonding and suchlike) but they happen to be irrelevant because climate science in interested in its _physical_ properties (how it responds to radiation, for example), never mind the complex physical factors involved in modelling the entire environment.
> 
> Anyway, I doubt he disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


im not disputing it as a greenhouse gas either, where have i Said that, and where did you assume I even think this?

And just how many scientists who are in agreement about global warming are climate scientists? Certainly not all of them are, you have physicists, chemists, geo-physicists, geologists, biologists and many many other fields also agreeing, but like you said, they are not climate scientists, does this also mean that these numbers are also irrelevant to the overall consensus?

There is more to chemistry than the procedures that cause bonding, you are also examining the effects of such chemicals. It is the chemist who can talk about acidification of the oceans and their effects (which is also discussed in the theory of global warming).

Im pretty sure chemists also examine radiation effects on particles.


----------



## jalex

Climate science is a crossover between physics and chemistry. If he were an atmospheric chemist or an environmental chemist I would pay attention; he is not.

Go back to the Wiki consensus page; there is a whole section with statements from meteorological, geophysical, oceanographical and paeleoclimatological organisations

A few choice quotes:



> The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming


^Geologists and meteorologists are the biggest sceptics in related fields, yet most of them agree with AGW.



> 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers





> A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.





> It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes


----------



## Igneous01

heres an interesting website - over 31'000 american scientists (over 9000 with phd) have signed a petition that is in disagreement with global warming and the policies introduced in the kyoto protocol.

here is the petition itself:









http://www.petitionproject.org/


----------



## jalex

^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Only about 3500 of the signers claimed to be climate scientists, and only 1400 of those claimed a PhD.



> Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> Climate science is a crossover between physics and chemistry. If he were an atmospheric chemist or an environmental chemist I would pay attention; he is not.


So, considering a majority of scientists are not climate scientists, then that must also mean that there voices on AGW are irrelevant. The real consensus by these standards would be 75 out of 77. Yes I agree that is quite a consensus. However, they are not the only ones who have merit to say about climate. And you cannot certainly deduce that the 2 that disagreed are no longer credible.

I have read and listened to both sides of the argument, I used to believe in AGW and learned about its effects on climate. Now that I have had a chance to hear some responses from those who disagree, i feel there are more questions then answers, and so I do not believe in AGW anymore.

let me also requote this, because its something we are forgetting here:


> Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.


Science does not depend on polling. Huh, took a while to figure that out eh?

but, if you want to take a look at some more numbers, then here:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/06/01/survey-shows-climatologists-are-split-global-warming



> A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California "Gender and Science" professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.


Lets face it, I dont believe and you do believe, I respect your choice for believing, as I hope you do mine.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> yes I do. Do you respect the credentials of the dissenting scientists?


One has to ask if the hypothetical dissenting scientist is commenting on his or her field of expertise, and whether he or she has true expertise in the area. And although it seems strange, there is something to counting the numbers of dissenters. No matter how well-established the theory, you will find someone who doubts it. There was a famous astrophysicist named Geoffrey Burbidge. He was one of the people who figured out how heavy elements were synthesize in stars. But he refused to believe the big bang theory, and came up with a deranged theory that mass was being created in various places. I sat in a seminar he gave, and it was bizarre to hear. He would likely have gotten the Nobel prize for his earlier work, but for his later lunacy.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> heres an interesting website - over 31'000 american scientists (over 9000 with phd) have signed a petition that is in disagreement with global warming and the policies introduced in the kyoto protocol.


Just curious, are you a 9/11 denier?


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> One has to ask if the hypothetical dissenting scientist is commenting on his or her field of expertise, and whether he or she has true expertise in the area. And although it seems strange, there is something to counting the numbers of dissenters. No matter how well-established the theory, you will find someone who doubts it. There was a famous astrophysicist named Geoffrey Burbidge. He was one of the people who figured out how heavy elements were synthesize in stars. But he refused to believe the big bang theory, and came up with a deranged theory that mass was being created in various places. I sat in a seminar he gave, and it was bizarre to hear. He would likely have gotten the Nobel prize for his earlier work, but for his later lunacy.


Einstein didnt believe in the Heisenberg principle, Im not sure he ever accepted it in his life, however I dont see his credibility being diminished because of that nor do I see his later proposals as being falsified because of that.

Richard Lindzen is a atmosphere physicist and professor at MIT, I dont see his position as being un-qualified as you so claim-He has brought up valid arguments on the issue. I dont see his position being compromised because of that anytime soon.



> Just curious, are you a 9/11 denier?


I am not going to answer a rhetorical question, clearly this is just being used as an insult.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> yes I do. Do you respect the credentials of the dissenting scientists?


Yes I do, and my point about the number of dissenting scientists vs. scientists in agreement still stands. Our reaction to the information provided by dissenting scientists should _not_ be: "As there may be flaws in the model, the model must be wrong and so should not be used for public policy", it should be: "_Although_ there are flaws in the model that we have to look into, the consensus is that human activity does affect the environment to a significant extent. So, though that extent is not exactly determined, the information is still reliable enough for us to have a great need to implement this in public policy."

I would be surprised if there weren't dissenting scientists, and I would be surprised if the dissenting scientists didn't have anything good to say. They _do_ have a useful input because that's what the scientific process is about - it's about critiquing and actively trying to prove a theory false. But though the dissent is a useful tool in gauging where we can improve our model, the fact remains that the model works well enough for us to start taking action.

Also, that petition you posted is very strangely worded. It's one thing to say that human activity doesn't cause any harm, but to actually suggest that our emissions are _beneficial_ for the environment and human health is kooky.


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> Yes I do, and my point about the number of dissenting scientists vs. scientists in agreement still stands. Our reaction to the information provided by dissenting scientists should _not_ be: "As there may be flaws in the model, the model must be wrong and so should not be used for public policy", it should be: "_Although_ there are flaws in the model that we have to look into, the consensus is that human activity does affect the environment to a significant extent. So, though that extent is not exactly determined, the information is still reliable enough for us to have a great need to implement this in public policy."
> 
> I would be surprised if there weren't dissenting scientists, and I would be surprised if the dissenting scientists didn't have anything good to say. They _do_ have a useful input because that's what the scientific process is about - it's about critiquing and actively trying to prove a theory false. But though the dissent is a useful tool in gauging where we can improve our model, the fact remains that the model works well enough for us to start taking action.
> 
> Also, that petition you posted is very strangely worded. It's one thing to say that human activity doesn't cause any harm, but to actually suggest that our emissions are _beneficial_ for the environment and human health is kooky.


the issue is not about the flaws of the models, because everyone can agree that they have their limitations. The issue is the projections these models make using double co2 for input, at first, they suggested global mean temperature increases anywhere from 1.5 to 7 degrees fahrenheight in the next hundred years, over time as the models became accurate, the maximum predicted has went down, from 7 to 5, to now 4 degrees. It will probably go down even more as the models become more accurate. Basing the arguments that catastrophic consequences await us in the next hundred years by these model projections is not looking good. And mind you these maximum ranges are in the extreme and low probablity range.

To specify further my questions:

Regarding Climate Sensitivity and reaction time
There are questions that I would like to have answered as to how even a 1 degree Celsius increase (converting the Fahrenheit to Celsius) could have disastrous effects on the environment, considering planet climate fluctuations have ranged from temperatures leading to ice ages, to temperatures like the medieval warm period. If you examine these trends, you see that it is not a uniform line going up, but various spikes and peaks that go up and down, and overtime increase in magnitude and eventually decreases in magnitude, with spikes and peaks appearing, how is our current graphs any different from this? Yes the spikes are much large in magnitude, but how for certain can you be this is an unnatural anomaly, and that we are not simply entering another warm period like the medieval one? What makes one believe the current spike will remain a uniform line as compared to the past trends showing that this is not the case?

Regarding mass extinction claims:
I would also like to know how Polar Bears, which have lived on this planet for many thousands of years, and have experienced far more climate fluctuations directly (as their environmental habitat is directly effected), have managed to survive particular spikes of climate change such as the medieval warm period and little ice age (bear in mind, these were very quick changes in climate).

Regarding man-made co2 effects on atmosphere:
And the big question, that considering water vapor is a much larger greenhouse effect than carbon or methane, and that only about 1/3 of the emissions of carbon, methane and various others are attributed to human development, can suggest that the changes in climate are our responsibility, knowing that the atmosphere density of carbon is very small, and that to compare its influence to water vapour, is also very small.

Or the ice cores sample graphs that were 'misinterpreted' by Gore that actually showed co2 following temperature.

There's also other questions voiced by scientists like Lindzen and oceanographers about the current systems on our oceans as being directly effected by sea ice meltings.

If I see these questions answered I will reconsider.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> The issue is the projections these models make using double co2 for input, at first, they suggested global mean temperature increases anywhere from 1.5 to 7 degrees fahrenheight in the next hundred years, over time as the models became accurate, the maximum predicted has went down, from 7 to 5, to now 4 degrees. *It will probably go down even more as the models become more accurate.*


It is not logical to say that because the predictions came down in one instance that, therefore, they will "probably" continue to go down as models become more accurate. They may have been more inaccurate before, but you're assuming a future outcome based on no evidence in order to fulfil your bias.



Igneous01 said:


> There are questions that I would like to have answered as to how even a 1 degree Celsius increase (converting the Fahrenheit to Celsius) could have disastrous effects on the environment, considering planet climate fluctuations have ranged from temperatures leading to ice ages, to temperatures like the medieval warm period. If you examine these trends, you see that it is not a uniform line going up, but various spikes and peaks that go up and down, and overtime increase in magnitude and eventually decreases in magnitude, with spikes and peaks appearing, how is our current graphs any different from this? Yes the spikes are much large in magnitude, but how for certain can you be this is an unnatural anomaly, and that we are not simply entering another warm period like the medieval one? What makes one believe the current spike will remain a uniform line as compared to the past trends showing that this is not the case?


I think you're making the mistake of not separating the hypothesis of human-caused climate change from the _fact_ of climate change and its consequences. Because some people believe that we are not the cause of climate change, they make the leap that climate change isn't really happening or is insignificant, but that's not the case. Climate change _is_ happening, for whatever reasons, and it _is_ significant.

Take a look at the changes in Arctic sea ice since the late 70s for example:










That is an immense amount of extra water in our seas and it is increasing all the time - those are satellite images you can't argue with; the change _is_ happening. It's wrong to take from these disturbing pictures the idea that we're going to face a global apocalypse, but we are going to face new hardships, which is one of the reasons why it's wrong to compare our current situation to the circumstances of people during medieval temperature fluctuations. Those people did not have highly concentrated populations in huge cities in vulnerable coastal regions. The flooding that we can expect would not have affected them greatly if they experienced it too. So, even if our climate change is only as damaging as the medieval warm period, it's still a problem!

So while you may want to argue with the notion that we are causing climate change, don't misinterpret your own objections as also being against the _fact_ of climate change happening. The planet _is_ warming, and even if it doesn't cause a global catastrophe, if the current trend continues we _will_ face extreme hardships that we must prepare for because modern civilization is in an unprecedented state of vulnerability.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> Einstein didnt believe in the Heisenberg principle, Im not sure he ever accepted it in his life, however I dont see his credibility being diminished because of that nor do I see his later proposals as being falsified because of that.


Einstein did believe quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principal (he was one of the inventors of quantum mechanics). Later in life he came to believe that a more comprehensive theory would restore determinism to physics, but he never claimed that quantum mechanics was wrong. He was working on what he considered to be the proper formulation of quantum mechanics.

I would not say his credibility was diminished, but it is generally considered a tragedy that as a result of this preoccupation the last ~40 years of his life passed without significant accomplishment.



Igneous01 said:


> Richard Lindzen is a atmosphere physicist and professor at MIT, I dont see his position as being un-qualified as you so claim-He has brought up valid arguments on the issue. I dont see his position being compromised because of that anytime soon.


I never claimed anything about Lindzen. I'd never heard of him, but a quick check with google suggests that Lindzen is a qualified scientist. As I understand it, he does not deny the basic tenets of climate change, but has proposed his own model which leads to the conclusion that the temperature increase would be smaller than has generally been predicted. The consensus of the community seems to be that his model doesn't work, and no one is advocating for it except for him. I'm not a climate scientist so I cannot assess in detail the validity of his model or of the arguments against it. However, he has been pushing this story for 22 years without success. Not the profile of a successful theory.


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> It is not logical to say that because the predictions came down in one instance that, therefore, they will "probably" continue to go down as models become more accurate. They may have been more inaccurate before, but you're assuming a future outcome based on no evidence in order to fulfil your bias.
> 
> I think you're making the mistake of not separating the hypothesis of human-caused climate change from the _fact_ of climate change and its consequences. Because some people believe that we are not the cause of climate change, they make the leap that climate change isn't really happening or is insignificant, but that's not the case. Climate change _is_ happening, for whatever reasons, and it _is_ significant.


But you are dismissing the decline in predicted maximum global temperature increase as having validity! And even then these estimates are low probability with the input of doubling co2!

I am aware that sea ice has been disappearing, however if you examine the temperature graphs of sea ice (as in this video) you will see that the temperature in summer remains for the most part unchanged, fluctuations are present in winter where it would be plausible to say that freezing is being slowed down in the winter months. I will let him explain this, because he understands it better than I do:





How many times do I have to say it: I am not denying climate change, nor am I denying co2 and greenhouse gases in contributing warming. Nor am I denying humans are putting in co2 into the atmosphere. But I am doubting the sensitivity of the climate in these model predictions, and the reaction time for trends to occur. I believe the effects of the changes in climate, will be anything but extreme, im sure there will be some possible relocations in the future when it comes to coastal regions, however, you must also take into account that most infrastructure around shores are near beaches that are generally 100m or more in length of sand, and that their is some elevation increase as you go up the beach towards mainland. As to how much flooding will actually occur, and its consequences is still not 100% confirmed, I suspect most housing and infrastructure around rocky cliffs and coves will probably remain unaffected.

and as for the model reliability, well you can examine the trends in the models here:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Models_fail and here:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N48/EDIT.php and here: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available and here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/


----------



## Polednice

Scarpia said:


> I never claimed anything about Lindzen. I'd never heard of him, but a quick check with google suggests that Lindzen is a qualified scientist. As I understand it, he does not deny the basic tenets of climate change, but has proposed his own model which leads to the conclusion that the temperature increase would be smaller than has generally been predicted. The consensus of the community seems to be that his model doesn't work, and no one is advocating for it except for him. I'm not a climate scientist so I cannot assess in detail the validity of his model or of the arguments against it. However, he has been pushing this story for 22 years without success. Not the profile of a successful theory.


This is an example of why we need to be aware of our own biases and limitations in understanding sciences that we don't study professionally. In my own experience, I have often come across scientific theories (both ones that are insanely difficult and others that are deceptively simple) where opposing arguments in all areas seem valid. I hear one point and think, "Yes, that's good!", then a contradictory one with apparent evidence, and think, "OK, that seems better, I'll go for that one!", only for this to be contradicted in turn moments later. And yet each one seems as valid as the last. Why? Because I'm unqualified and am easily swayed by the latest thing I hear, or by whatever confirms my preconceived biases, because I don't have the necessary knowledge to adequately assess what I'm being told. So what should I do in complex scientific debates where many sides of an issue seem to have equal validity to my untrained eyes? Ignore my intuitions which are probably wrong, and follow wherever the largest number of qualified scientists go if there is a significant majority: AGW.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> I am aware that sea ice has been disappearing, however if you examine the temperature graphs of sea ice (as in this video) you will see that the temperature in summer remains for the most part unchanged, fluctuations are present in winter where it would be plausible to say that freezing is being slowed down in the winter months. I will let him explain this, because he understands it better than I do:


That clip was out of context, but it seemed incoherent to me. I can see how someone could argue that the clip is evidence that Dr. Lindzen is suffering from senile dementia.


----------



## Polednice

Igenous, could I just ask how your views affect your opinion on government policy? Do you think we should be backing green technologies, perhaps for energy reasons rather than climate? Or do you think it's a waste of time and money?


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> Igenous, could I just ask how your views affect your opinion on government policy? Do you think we should be backing green technologies, perhaps for energy reasons rather than climate? Or do you think it's a waste of time and money?


Im with newer technologies that are renewable, it is quite obvious fossil fuels are a pollutant and cause harmful effects to environment and living species, there is no doubt about that. However, things like the kyoto protocol, claiming 80% reductions in carbon, is not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> That clip was out of context, but it seemed incoherent to me. I can see how someone could argue that the clip is evidence that Dr. Lindzen is suffering from senile dementia.


yes indeed it was taken out of context, it was only a small clip from the entire presentation. But of course, if you want to argue its incoherent and that hes senile and that anything he says makes no sense without sufficient response to argument, by all means, if that enhances your credibility as a scientist go ahead.

but If you still want to argue the model predictions are accurate, I would like to see you respond to these comments:


> It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.
> 
> However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.





> In June 2007, Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)





> Lindzen and Choi report that all eleven models employed in the IPCC's analysis "agree as to positive feedback," but they find that they all disagree - and disagree "very sharply" - with the real-world observations that they (Lindzen and Choi) utilized, which imply that negative feedback actually prevails. And the presence of that negative feedback reduces the CO2-induced propensity for warming to the extent that their analysis of the real-world observational data only yields a mean SST increase "of ~0.5°C for a doubling of CO2."





> The eight naturally-occurring phenomena employed by Idso were (1) the change in the air's water vapor content that occurs at Phoenix, Arizona, with the advent of the summer monsoon, (2) the naturally-occurring vertical redistribution of dust that occurs at Phoenix between summer and winter, (3) the annual cycle of surface air temperature that is caused by the annual cycle of solar radiation absorption at the earth's surface, (4) the warming effect of the entire atmosphere caused by its mean flux of thermal radiation to the surface of the earth, (5) the annually-averaged equator-to-pole air temperature gradient that is sustained by the annually-averaged equator-to-pole gradient of total surface-absorbed radiant energy, (6) the mean surface temperatures of Earth, Mars and Venus relative to the amounts of CO2 contained in their respective atmospheres, (7) the paradox of the faint early sun and its implications for earth's thermal history, and (8) the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical oceans and its impact on sea surface temperatures.
> 
> These eight analyses, in the words of Idso, "suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C," which is right in line with Lindzen and Choi's deduced warming of ~0.5°C for a nominal doubling of the air's CO2 content. Hence, there would appear to be a goodly amount of real-world data that argue strongly against the over-inflated CO2-induced global warming that is being predicted by state-of-the-art climate models.





> The computer models predict that the 20th century temperatures should have increased by 1.6 to 3.74 Celsius, while the actual observed 20th-century temperature increase was about 0.6 Celsius. A model that fails to history match is useless for predicting the future.
> 
> The IPCC Third Assessment Report projected a surface temperature increase from 1990 to 2100 of 1.4 C to 5.8 C, corresponding to 0.13 C/decade to 0.53 C/decade. The IPCC low estimate corresponds to the actual temperature warming rate as measured by satellite data.
> 
> The IPCC assumes that the Sun has little effect, even though observational evidence clearly shows the Sun has a significant effect on climate.
> 
> The models assume the 20th century temperature rise is caused by CO2 increases, and parameters are set in the models to make the temperature rise in response to the CO2. The direct effect of increasing CO2 concentration on global warming is very small. All the models amplify an initial increase in temperature due to CO2 by employing water vapour and clouds as a large positive feed back. However, there is no evidence that water vapour and clouds provides a large positive feed back. They may provide a negative feed back.


this was all found in those 4 links I posted, so really, I would like to know, where is the validity in climate models predicting future climate in this case? Can you answer this?


----------



## Scarpia

Polednice said:


> This is an example of why we need to be aware of our own biases and limitations in understanding sciences that we don't study professionally. In my own experience, I have often come across scientific theories (both ones that are insanely difficult and others that are deceptively simple) where opposing arguments in all areas seem valid. I hear one point and think, "Yes, that's good!", then a contradictory one with apparent evidence, and think, "OK, that seems better, I'll go for that one!", only for this to be contradicted in turn moments later. And yet each one seems as valid as the last. Why? Because I'm unqualified and am easily swayed by the latest thing I hear, or by whatever confirms my preconceived biases, because I don't have the necessary knowledge to adequately assess what I'm being told. So what should I do in complex scientific debates where many sides of an issue seem to have equal validity to my untrained eyes? Ignore my intuitions which are probably wrong, and follow wherever the largest number of qualified scientists go if there is a significant majority: AGW.


Something I would add is that the non-scientist tends to think that an objection 'disproves' a model. Science is rarely so simple. Whether the objection is significant typical hinges on the magnitude of the effect.

In the context of AGW, industry puts CO2 into the air. Then there are other effects which either amplify or de-amplify the effect. Temperature increase can cause even more greenhouse gases to be released from the ocean, that amplifies the effect. Temperature increase can cause more clouds to be created, maybe that de-amplifies the effect. I don't think the climate community would argue that the effect that Lindzen has proposed doesn't exist. It is simply that he claims the effect is very large. The community has considered the effect, and the consensus is that the effect is much smaller. To imagine that we will argue that issue on this web site is lunacy. We have to assume that if Lindzen is right his idea will percolate through the community and become consensus. After 22 years, that hasn't happened.

Here's another little nugget. Evidence suggests the tundra is melting much faster than had been believed, and will release vast quantities of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. I bet that's not in the climate models yet.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> yes indeed it was taken out of context, it was only a small clip from the entire presentation. But of course, if you want to argue its incoherent and that hes senile and that anything he says makes no sense without sufficient response to argument, by all means, if that enhances your credibility as a scientist go ahead.


My credibility as a scientist depends on my scientific publications.

However, you are gravitating to the lunatic fringe among the cohort of web-site-posters. That is an accomplishment! :lol:


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> Something I would add is that the non-scientist tends to think that an objection 'disproves' a model. Science is rarely so simple. Whether the objection is significant typical hinges on the magnitude of the effect.
> 
> In the context of AGW, industry puts CO2 into the air. Then there are other effects which either amplify or de-amplify the effect. Temperature increase can cause even more greenhouse gases to be released from the ocean, that amplifies the effect. Temperature increase can cause more clouds to be created, maybe that de-amplifies the effect. I don't think the climate community would argue that the effect that Lindzen has proposed doesn't exist. It is simply that he claims the effect is very large. The community has considered the effect, and the consensus is that the effect is much smaller. To imagine that we will argue that issue on this web site is lunacy. We have to assume that if Lindzen is right his idea will percolate through the community and become consensus. After 22 years, that hasn't happened.
> 
> Here's another little nugget. Evidence suggests the tundra is melting much faster than had been believed, and will release vast quantities of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. I bet that's not in the climate models yet.


there is no sufficient proof of clouds or water being positive feedback loops, on the contrary, they have been examined to be negative feedback loops.



> However, you are gravitating to the lunatic fringe among the cohort of web-site-posters. That is an accomplishment!


Those quotes are also from scientists like yourself, who have made publications and peer reviewed articles, and are recognized for their credentials in their respected societies. Its not like science articles are not published on the internet, they are accessible for anyone to look at.

So tell me, from those quotes of people who compared the model data to historical data and found it way off base, how can you validate the model predictions? Do you believe in the predictions that global mean temperatures will rise 1-2 degrees in the future based on these models?


----------



## mmsbls

@Igneous01: You have suggested that there are many questions about Climate Change that leave you very skeptical about its detrimental effect on humans. Among these are:
- Issues surrounding the Medieval Warm Period
- Magnitude of the human effect on CO2 in the atmosphere and that effect on warming
- Questions brought up by Lindzen
- Does CO2 following T
- Variables that affect warming besides CO2 (are these included in the models)
- Others

You seem fairly knowledgeable about various issues compared to the average person. You must have read a significant amount perhaps in books and on the Internet. I recognize most of your questions as ones I have read answers to. When you searched for answers to these questions, did you not find them? Did you feel the answers were not convincing?


----------



## Igneous01

mmsbls said:


> @Igneous01: You have suggested that there are many questions about Climate Change that leave you very skeptical about its detrimental effect on humans. Among these are:
> - Issues surrounding the Medieval Warm Period
> - Magnitude of the human effect on CO2 in the atmosphere and that effect on warming
> - Questions brought up by Lindzen
> - Does CO2 following T
> - Variables that affect warming besides CO2 (are these included in the models)
> - Others
> 
> You seem fairly knowledgeable about various issues compared to the average person. You must have read a significant amount perhaps in books and on the Internet. I recognize most of your questions as ones I have read answers to. When you searched for answers to these questions, did you not find them? Did you feel the answers were not convincing?


unfortunately no, i have not, can you please direct me to some sources that do? I would like to read them.


----------



## jalex

I'm not sure that this answers every single one of those questions, but I found this a very informative article and it does offer some detailed rebuttals to a set of criticisms of the AGW hypothesis: http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

It talks about water vapour, the past climate, the reliability of climate models, the effect of the ocean, temperature/CO2 cause and effect relationship amongst other things.


----------



## Ukko

Scarpia said:


> Here's another little nugget. Evidence suggests the tundra is melting much faster than had been believed, and will release vast quantities of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. I bet that's not in the climate models yet.


I think you may be referring to the permafrost situation. That is the subject of the link in the post that started this thread. The potential effects from melting permafrost have been known for awhile, I think, so may be factored into climate models - probably with varying time frames for the 'tipping point's arrival.

BTW the tundra thaws - at its surface - every year. The permafrost is the ground that the thaw doesn't have the time or intensity to reach. [I am probably preaching to the choir here. But I am also getting a music term into the mix  ]


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> Is there the same level of consensus with AGW, as there is in String Theory?


Physicists are still arguing about string theory, so I think it's safe to say that there's more scientific consensus over AGW.


----------



## Scarpia

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think you may be referring to the permafrost situation. That is the subject of the link in the post that started this thread. The potential effects from melting permafrost have been known for awhile, I think, so may be factored into climate models - probably with varying time frames for the 'tipping point's arrival.
> 
> BTW the tundra thaws - at its surface - every year. The permafrost is the ground that the thaw doesn't have the time or intensity to reach. [I am probably preaching to the choir here. But I am also getting a music term into the mix  ]


I think it may be a separate issue. I found articles that refer to both permafrost and tundra. Maybe the journalists got them mixed up (I am likely to).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/29/us-tundra-warming-idUSTRE56S53E20090729


----------



## Igneous01

jalex said:


> I'm not sure that this answers every single one of those questions, but I found this a very informative article and it does offer some detailed rebuttals to a set of criticisms of the AGW hypothesis: http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
> 
> It talks about water vapour, the past climate, the reliability of climate models, the effect of the ocean, temperature/CO2 cause and effect relationship amongst other things.


an interesting read with valid points, I liked that link, thanks for sharing.

However it is stated that the magnitude of change is still under much discussion and debate, we all know the climate is warming, but by how much is yet to be determined.

I didnt however like the last argument about the models, he simply said that the prediction of doubling co2 correlates with IPCC climate model report of 1 - 4.5 degrees. And judging by some statements made by some scientists within IPCC, this brings questions as to the accuracy of the models, and whether or not the doubling of co2 will reach these levels. That much is still being questioned.

All in all a good read and some good explanation.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> And the big question, that considering water vapor is a much larger greenhouse effect than carbon or methane, and that only about 1/3 of the emissions of carbon, methane and various others are attributed to human development, can suggest that the changes in climate are our responsibility, knowing that the atmosphere density of carbon is very small, and that to compare its influence to water vapour, is also very small.


This statement is only meaningful if you present the actual calculations that led you to make it (whether they be yours or someone else's). Simply stating that you happen to feel that the effect of increasing CO2 concentration is "very small" is not sufficient.


----------



## Igneous01

Fsharpmajor said:


> This statement is only meaningful if you present the actual calculations that led you to make it (whether they be yours or someone else's). Simply stating that you happen to feel that the effect of increasing CO2 concentration is "very small" is not sufficient.


examining this graph/table of radiation effects in various wavelengths of various atmosphere particles:











> But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle - by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons


http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

thats in defense of AGW


----------



## Ukko

Scarpia said:


> I think it may be a separate issue. I found articles that refer to both permafrost and tundra. Maybe the journalists got them mixed up (I am likely to).
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/29/us-tundra-warming-idUSTRE56S53E20090729


The issues are related, in fact they are different aspects of the same issue. The tundra gets warmer, releasing more stuff - and thaws deeper, 'attacking' the permafrost. The ever-increasing emissions from heating - _augmented from other sources_- cause more thawing, until the tipping point is reached. Then the process accelerates and is self-sustaining.

Yipee.


----------



## Igneous01

here is one more question I want to ask:

If the accumulation of co2 in the atmosphere increasing since the industrial revolution to 100ppm (from 250 to 350) is dangerous (considering its rate of change) how can it be explained of previous climates on earth that had supposedly 4000ppm in the atmosphere with life being sustainable and climate not being as extreme as being claimed? With that amount of co2 in the atmosphere, you would expect the positive feedbacks to help continue increase GMT (global mean temperature) to almost un-survivable conditions and drastically reduce bio-diversity before the equilibrium effect took place.

Edit*
actually thats not true because the co2 levels relating to temperature are a logarithmic effect, so it would take 1000ppm to increase the gmt by a degree from todays 350ppm (If I read that correctly) and so the substantial change in temperature would be about 3-4 degrees in GMT compared to now.
Still, I dont see the issue then with co2 levels in the atmosphere if they effect gmt in such a way. Even if the 4 degree increase was increased further by feedback loops, there is no explanation as to why life and biodiversity was not seriously hindered by this. Maybe their were negative feedback's that had more influence to help stabilize the climate?


----------



## Scarpia

Hilltroll72 said:


> The issues are related, in fact they are different aspects of the same issue. The tundra gets warmer, releasing more stuff - and thaws deeper, 'attacking' the permafrost. The ever-increasing emissions from heating - _augmented from other sources_- cause more thawing, until the tipping point is reached. *Then the process accelerates and is self-sustaining.*
> 
> Yipee.


That's another subtlety that the deniers miss. The process becomes self-sustaining, which means most of the carbon changing the climate is coming from "natural" sources. This is interpreted as indicating that human release of greenhouse gases is insignificant, when it is the thing that puts the process into motion.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

^ The Skeptical Science argument is correct, and explains it better than I could. I hadn't heard of the site before, but it looks like quite a good one.


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> That's another subtlety that the deniers miss. The process becomes self-sustaining, which means most of the carbon changing the climate is coming from "natural" sources. This is interpreted as indicating that human release of greenhouse gases is insignificant, when it is the thing that puts the process into motion.


the process becomes self-sustaining, but it is not infinite, and there is no solid conclusion yet as to what the effects of co2 levels will have in the next hundred years or so. We are still not sure what the effects of feedback loops will be on climate.


----------



## Scarpia

> But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle - by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons





Igneous01 said:


> thats in defense of AGW


It really becomes impossible to understand what you are getting at. You quoted one clause of a sentence saying "our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons" and then omitted the following explanation of why the addition CO2 still has an important effect. Are you trying to demonstrate your right to misunderstand any physical argument, no matter how simple?


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> It really becomes impossible to understand what you are getting at. You quoted one clause of a sentence saying "our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons" and then omitted the following explanation of why the addition CO2 still has an important effect. Are you trying to demonstrate your right to misunderstand any physical argument, no matter how simple?


he asked where the number came from, i showed a graph and where the number came from. While I omitted the argument, he wasn't asking for the argument, simply where I got the numbers from. Yes the argument is sound, but I want to ask you again:

Do you have a general idea how the carbon levels in the atmosphere will effect the climate? What is your view on the feedback mechanisms and how will they react to these co2 levels? What about climates in the past with 4000 ppm of co2?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Igneous01 said:


> I would also like to know how Polar Bears, which have lived on this planet for many thousands of years, and have experienced far more climate fluctuations directly (as their environmental habitat is directly effected), have managed to survive particular spikes of climate change such as the medieval warm period and little ice age (bear in mind, these were very quick changes in climate).


Since the preferred habitat of polar bears is a floating ice / open water interface, I would expect their numbers probably fluctuated. (They can retreat to dry land if necessary, but then they can't hunt seals, so they suffer from malnutrition).

If their population has ever dropped really drastically in the past, this would be reflected in loss of genetic diversity. It happened to the cheetah--at some point in the past, cheetahs nearly went extinct, and they lost most of their genetic diversity. As a result of that, they suffer deleterious effects from inbreeding--particularly reduced male fertility. So an indirect way to address the question of polar bear populations in the past (there is no real direct way that I can think of offhand) would be to study the genetic diversity of polar bears, but I don't think anybody has done this.


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> Since the preferred habitat of polar bears is a floating ice / open water interface, I would expect their numbers probably fluctuated. (They can retreat to dry land if necessary, but then they can't hunt seals, so they suffer from malnutrition).
> 
> If their population has ever dropped really drastically in the past, this would be reflected in loss of genetic diversity. It happened to the cheetah--at some point in the past, cheetahs nearly went extinct, and they lost most of their genetic diversity. As a result of that, they suffer deleterious effects from inbreeding--particularly reduced male fertility. So an indirect way to address the question of polar bear populations in the past (there is no real direct way that I can think of offhand) would be to study the genetic diversity of polar bears, but I don't think anybody has done this.


It looks like biologists do know that the polar bear is an offshoot of the brown bear, fairly recent in the scheme of lifeforms. The new species has been successful so far, but wouldn't genetic diversity depend on how many individuals contributed to the change?

BTW I have read that polar bears have great difficulty changing 'back' to the brown bear's dietary scheme, because they don't 'get' the methodology the brown bear uses. Seems to me that the much different 'hibernation' scheme would be a big problem too.


----------



## Scarpia

Igneous01 said:


> Do you have a general idea how the carbon levels in the atmosphere will effect the climate? What is your view on the feedback mechanisms and how will they react to these co2 levels? What about climates in the past with 4000 ppm of co2?


Is that supposed to be a joke? The last time CO2 was that high was 400 million years ago. There were no polar ice caps, most of what is now North America was under water, the earth temperature was much warmer than now, every form of life from that period is now extinct. Are you suggesting a return to those conditions would be anything other than a catastrophe?

If you want to understand climate change you should read a book which describes the consensus scientific view.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> It looks like biologists do know that the polar bear is an offshoot of the brown bear, fairly recent in the scheme of lifeforms. The new species has been successful so far, but wouldn't genetic diversity depend on how many individuals contributed to the change?
> 
> BTW I have read that polar bears have great difficulty changing 'back' to the brown bear's dietary scheme, because they don't 'get' the methodology the brown bear uses. Seems to me that the much different 'hibernation' scheme would be a big problem too.


I can't find much information on polar bear genetic diversity (having admittedly not spent very much time on it), but this would seem to indicate that they're in a reasonable state of genetic health:

*http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/polar-bear-comprehensive/genetics*

How they originally came to evolve from brown bears, I don't claim to know. They can still hybridize successfully with brown bears, so the two species must not diverged all that much, despite their different appearance and behaviour. Regarding behaviour, though, bears are intelligent creatures, and the young ones possibly learn things from their parents, such as how to hunt and kill seals, in the same way that higher primates such as chimpanzees learn how to do things.


----------



## Igneous01

Scarpia said:


> Is that supposed to be a joke? The last time CO2 was that high was 400 million years ago. There were no polar ice caps, most of what is now North America was under water, the earth temperature was much warmer than now, every form of life from that period is now extinct. Are you suggesting a return to those conditions would be anything other than a catastrophe?
> 
> If you want to understand climate change you should read a book which describes the consensus scientific view.


can you be certain that those life forms (which are extinct now) was the result of their climate? Those climates were stable. If that were the case you would not see a progression into the Triassic and Jurassic eras as being as successful as it was. I also doubt you can say for certain that most of america was under water considering we cant calculate that. Stop throwing assertions that I have not made - I merely asked a question without assertion.

Clearly you do not want to debate with me or discuss the issue if all you are going to do, is add an insult in every single response of yours. I have done my part to be respectable to the other side, I have also read the argument on the other side (upsetting the ratio of carbon in/out of system by humans) so please stop trying to lecture me. I get it, I obviously didnt read it hard enough otherwise I wouldn't be asking questions about the issue.

If demonizing questions to popular or mainstream, or even minority is acceptable, then there is no debate here, and there is no discussion here, period.

This thread has run its course for a good few pages, and I think thats where it should be put to rest. I dont really have anything more to say, and I believe you also do not have anything more to add (considering a majority of your responses were insults, that reduces the responses even further)

If it makes you feel better, I am reconsidering after reading a few more articles and after watching a particularly good debate between two experts in climate science (yes, Lindzen and Andrew Dessler) that has raised some questions to the validity of the graphs used by Lindzen, but also the validity of the graphs used by Dessler.

We shall see what happens 20 years from now, but I for one, am not going to go into an alarmist or panic mode and let this issue eat me from the insides. I will simply relax and observe for myself what happens in that time period, and if your right, then may I drown in the ensuing flood that is to come before us.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Temporarily closed for repairs.

Edit: thread now re-opened... with (not-so) gentle reminder to post in accordance with Forum Rules, expressing opinions in a civil and respectful manner, and not getting personal.

Posts that have violated these guidelines will remain here, as an example of how NOT to post, and how to get a thread temporarily (or not so temporarily) locked.

Thank you.


----------



## Polednice

Soooooooo........


----------



## emiellucifuge

Occams razor is a handy tool to have


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Soooooooo........


Nice find, _Poley_. And there you go with that razor again.

[I think we're alright here as long as we stay away from polar bears - which is a good idea anyway.]


----------



## starthrower

The public at large is just as guilty as the oil companies. We all want our own car to drive anywhere at anytime at whatever speed we think we can get away with. Hardly anybody is in to conservation, and most of us don't want to think about the future implications of our lifestyles.


----------



## starthrower

... including having everything at our fingertips when we walk into Wal-Mart, our favorite grocery store, etc. It all gets there on diesel guzzling tractor trailers. Hundreds of millions of pounds of freight is also air shipped from coast to coast daily on huge cargo jets to meet the needs of our consumer driven society. And we're all sitting in front of our computers daily consuming gobs of electricity.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I for one have never implied that the blame should fall anywhere other than on humanity.

I cycle to work, I eat organic food only, i have solar panels on the roof of my house, i am active in raising awareness locally and donate money to global efforts, I have actually worked for a conservation cause voluntarily, I am going to study biology to do my part and save biodiversity.

Tell me what you have done.


----------



## Ukko

I drive a Yaris... heat with propane... no incandescent lighting... that's about it. All for my personal benefit, too.


----------



## starthrower

I can't cycle to work unless I want to get run over or freeze to death. I drive as little as possible, stay home on weekends, and maybe go to the mall twice a year to get some new clothes.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Its a shame that most cities in the US really dont offer people many alternative transport options.

If not cycle lanes (which are only really valuable with good city planning), every city should have a good public transport network, that is a preferrable alternative to driving. When I visit the UK or the US I am shocked at the amount of traffic.
Im lucky to live in Amsterdam which is a miracle of city planning that allows people to cycle, and also that there has been enough political will in the past to develop public transport.


----------



## mmsbls

starthrower said:


> The public at large is just as guilty as the oil companies. We all want our own car to drive anywhere at anytime at whatever speed we think we can get away with. Hardly anybody is in to conservation, and most of us don't want to think about the future implications of our lifestyles.


Excellent point. I work in the field of advanced environmental transportation (fuel cells, hybrids, alternative fuels, etc.). While there is work being done to push behavior changes that will reduce emissions and the carbon footprint, almost everyone accepts that behavior is _much_ harder to change than technology. In theory it would be much easier for everyone to drive less, purchase more locally grown food, telecommute more often, buy higher fuel economy vehicles, or change many other behaviors that would reduce emissions than for society to develop new technology. In practice, the only changes that have reduced emissions came from new technology pushed by government regulation and spending, and many of those gains have been offset by behavior (increased driving mileage, purchasing bigger more powerful vehicles, etc.).


----------



## starthrower

That's just it. The political will is not up to the challenge here in the US. Everybody is still focused on the short term.


----------



## starthrower

People are programmed to consume the next bigger and "better" product that gets introduced to the market every year. I work for a local air freight/transportation company and we move freight for all the big retailers. It gets more ridiculous every year. 6-7 years ago everybody was buying 32-42 inch TVs. Now it's 60, 73, 82, and gasp...93 inch TVs.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> I for one have never implied that the blame should fall anywhere other than on humanity.
> 
> I cycle to work, I eat organic food only, i have solar panels on the roof of my house, i am active in raising awareness locally and donate money to global efforts, I have actually worked for a conservation cause voluntarily, I am going to study biology to do my part and save biodiversity.
> 
> Tell me what you have done.


I do what I can, but I wonder how much impact the green movement actually has. Are the collective efforts of the environmentally conscious anywhere near enough to counter the apathy of the vast millions of people that simply don't give a ****? I don't think we have enough time to convince more people.

I saw a convincing video (can't remember who it was!) by a man stating that historical precedent shows that we're naive to try to reverse our emissions. Instead, we have to adapt to our new circumstances. We have to plough all of our investment into technologies that can help offset the damage we're doing and will continue to do, rather than alternatives that we would have to convince people to use.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ive also heard those arguments Pole, but the cost of adaptation will be much greater than the cost of mitigation. Its stupid.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Ive also heard those arguments Pole, but the cost of adaptation will be much greater than the cost of mitigation. Its stupid.


When you say "cost", do you mean financial or environmental?

EDIT: As it turns out, adaptation can only ever be part of the solution anyway. Perhaps for our own good, some fossil fuels are drying up, so we need alternatives, and we can make those green.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I mean financial, but the two are inseparable. We cannot survive without functioning ecosystems. They provide us everything we have and services valued at hundreds of billions annually (assessed by the UN in the TEEB report). 

People often talk about destructive weather, floods and other phenomena that will directly and negatively impact our economies, but the environmental damage is overlooked in the economic debate. 
The adaptation to flooding is is simple; build flood defences. But what is the solution when a complex ecosystem stops functions and can no longer provide. Often we dont fully understand how these things work.

Its imperative that substantial areas of land are 'rewilded' fully and that these are connected appropriately, so that animals and plants may have the fullest opportunities to adapt to different climatic conditions. This means restoring the ecosystem completely, even reintroducing the top predators, who's importance can not be underestimated.


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> [...]
> Its imperative that substantial areas of land are 'rewilded' fully and that these are connected appropriately, so that animals and plants may have the fullest opportunities to adapt to different climatic conditions. This means restoring the ecosystem completely, even reintroducing the top predators, who's importance can not be underestimated.


There is damn little room left for those 'substantial re-wilded areas'. There may be potential for interleaving 'wild zones', but those top predators will have to remain _us_.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> There is damn little room left for those 'substantial re-wilded areas'. There may be potential for interleaving 'wild zones', but those top predators will have to remain _us_.


There is plenty of space!

1. Look here for a succesful project working on a large scale throughout europe:
http://rewildingeurope.com

2. Economic decrepitude in rural areas is drawing people to cities and leaving farmland abandoned. In Europe there will be an esitmated 200,000Km2 of abandoned farmland in 2050. See here a paper by the IEEP on the subject: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/733/Farml..._trends_and_prospects_-_FINAL_15-11-2010_.pdf
Some of this land is already being put to good use by the org mentioned in (1)

3. The leaders of the world have already agreed at the UN Biodiversity convention in Tokyo 2010 to set aside 17% of the worlds land area, and 10% of the ocean as protected areas by 2020.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/un-biodiversity-conventio_0_n_775844.html

4. Developed nations need to protect any remaining valuable habitats in order to reach this goal. Most developing nations still have plenty of natural areas left, but need to ensure they remain so.
The only country not join the convention, btw, is yours.

5. in NL we have a plan called the Ecological Head-Structure. We currently already have 17,5% of land protected, and the plan is to buy up strips of land to connect these, allowing the migration of animals and plants. This plan has unfortunately been put on hold by the current government. These connections are just as essential.

I dont understand why you insist that we must remain the top predator. Already wolves are having a lot of success in rural germany, while only 6 sheep have been reported killed in one year. When they were reintroduced to yellowstone they had incredible unforeseen effects and saved many species of animals and plants from local extirpation.


----------



## Ukko

The problems with large wild predators come around the edges of the wild areas. Ranchers and those critturs don't get along, because sheep and cattle are prey animals. BTW wolves are not the only large wild predators in North America. The cougar and Ursus horribilis are not good neighbors for Homo sapiens.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> The problems with large wild predators come around the edges of the wild areas. Ranchers and those critturs don't get along, because sheep and cattle are prey animals. BTW wolves are not the only large wild predators in North America. The cougar and Ursus horribilis are not good neighbors for Homo sapiens.


Of course everything is a compromise, thats how politics goes. but we need to decide what our priorities are.

Its either:


> When they were reintroduced to yellowstone they had incredible unforeseen effects and saved many species of animals and plants from local extirpation.


Or



> Ranchers and those critturs don't get along, because sheep and cattle are prey animals.


Anyway predators are not such a problem.

Wolves:
-In the continental U.S., health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.

-Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005.

-Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, as wolves did in 2005. 
-Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.

-In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5% of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005.
- The percentage of sheep lost to "other predators" in states with wolves averaged 2.5%.

According to this document, Cougars only killed an average of 375 livestock animals annually during the period 1977-1981. An insignificant number.

Bears are really an insignificant livestock predator compared to wolves. (http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D8703.PDF)
In this region of Italy 92.1% of livestock predation was wolves and only 7.8% bears from 1980-88.

So not only are there other areas to focus on in order to reduce livestock loss, there are also easy methods to prevent unnecessary loss to predators. Things like higher corral fences, keeping animals in at night or training a dog to accompany the animals have had great success in the developing world, where the predators are arguably more problematic.

I have done work for a few conservation organisations in Namibia, where farmers face predation by lions and leopards, as well as damage by elephants. The simple things I described above work miracles.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Anyway, the importance of top predators for the function of entire ecosystems is well studied:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714142133.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5865/952.abstract?sid=8c486345-44f9-43f0-bc83-ea5676eb109e
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1959.abstract?sid=85a61e7c-1de5-4bde-8418-1f121637669c
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5548/1923.abstract?sid=8c486345-44f9-43f0-bc83-ea5676eb109e
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5777/1230.abstract?sid=8c486345-44f9-43f0-bc83-ea5676eb109e
(to link four papers, one on kelp forests, one on grasslands, one on forests and one on the arctic tundra)

Therefore it is not so ridiculous to say that predators are essential to the ecosystem services we utilise, which are valued in economic terms here:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/

And in conclusion, I think the argument for predators far outweighs any argument by farmers to keep predators out.


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> [...]
> And in conclusion, I think the argument for predators far outweighs any argument by farmers to keep predators out.


I have come to a different conclusion.

:tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Oh and in case youre still wondering why we cant simply take the role of the predators... All those papers will show that the predators' effect is just as much to do with behaviour and dispersion as it is with sheer number of kills. By changing the behaviour and location of the prey they help to create habitat mosaics and increase diversity.

On a more abstract note, Id like to add that we have consistently made mistakes and caught by surprise in the way that the natural world reacts to our influence. I think we should have learnt by now to stop assuming the role of god and be humble in our respect for nature and allow it work how it has for eternity.

sorry for ranting, its just a subject im passionate about. 

Id love to hear your arguments to the contrary if you have any. :tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

Your generalities - including those various statistics, ignore the unavoidable human/big-predator interface where settled areas and wild areas meet. I don't want a grizzly bear or a cougar in my back yard. In fact, I won't stand for it. Those state-wide percentages of livestock kills are useless; it's the interface areas that count.

I considered suggesting that we discuss things via PMs, but I can feel myself getting angry already, and anger is bad for the health. So I'll drop this subject.


----------



## emiellucifuge

While there is much I wish to say in reply to your post, I will respect your wishes and drop the subject.

I hope I havent said anything to anger you, but that your anger comes from a general passion for the topic.


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> While there is much I wish to say in reply to your post, I will respect your wishes and drop the subject.
> 
> I hope I havent said anything to anger you, but that your anger comes from a general passion for the topic.


You guessed it; the topic, and the 'solutions' offered by folks who don't live next to the woods, or the 'new' country folks who _shouldn't_ be living next to, or _in_ the woods, grinds on me some.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I understand, but I had hoped (still do) that such an important topic would not be decided by personal feelings and attitudes, but rather by statistics and facts.

And I recently spent four months in the Namibian 'woods'. I understand the issues and conflicts that arise when predators and people try share a space, but if anything my experience there only gave me more confidence that solutions are attainable that dont involve the extermination of anything we dont like.


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> I understand, but I had hoped (still do) that such an important topic would not be decided by personal feelings and attitudes, but rather by statistics and facts.
> 
> And I recently spent four months in the Namibian 'woods'. I understand the issues and conflicts that arise when predators and people try share a space, but if anything my experience there only gave me more confidence that solutions are attainable that dont involve the extermination of anything we dont like.


"Extermination" of the large predators is highly unnecessary, in North America and maybe anywhere. Cougar and black bear have learned before to avoid civilization, and humans they get wind of in the wild. Wolves have never lost that caution, that I know of. The grizzly is isolated, we only have to stay out of its way. The main problem here, as I see it. is human encroachment combined with loss of 'respect' by the predator. In the West the livestock needs to be withdrawn a few miles from the park edges, and the 'neutral' ground thus created needs to be patrolled. People need to stop building homes in the wild country. That's being attempted in Africa, there's no _good_ reason it can't be done here.

There; I'm done with the 'needs'. I don't believe any of that will get done. We don't even respect ourselves - respecting the wild world is highly unlikely.

Sorry, _emiellucifuge_, I don't want to think about it anymore.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

This is just my opinion, but I would say that if you can't maintain a functional population of bald eagles in your country, then maybe that bird ought not to be the symbol of your country.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll I dont think our thoughts are too different.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Fsharpmajor said:


> This is just my opinion, but I would say that if you can't maintain a functional population of bald eagles in your country, then maybe that bird ought not to be the symbol of your country.


I apologize for this rather thoughtless post, because when I checked afterwards I found out that bald eagle numbers have recovered dramatically in the 48 contiguous US states in the last dozen years or so thanks to a successful conservation effort (and the banning of DDT some decades earlier). My bad.


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> I apologize for this rather thoughtless post, because when I checked afterwards I found out that bald eagle numbers have recovered dramatically in the 48 contiguous US states in the last dozen years or so thanks to a successful conservation effort (and the banning of DDT some decades earlier). My bad.


I haven't seen a professional opinion on this, but I've wondered if the comeback was built upon the preceding resurgence in osprey population. Don't know how much of the fish-eagle's diet relies on robbing the fish-hawk.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> I haven't seen a professional opinion on this, but I've wondered if the comeback was built upon the preceding resurgence in osprey population. Don't know how much of the fish-eagle's diet relies on robbing the fish-hawk.


http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/JFO/v059n02/p0183-p0188.pdf

Unfortunately this paper doesnt quite address the issue, but still an interesting read.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> I do what I can, but I wonder how much impact the green movement actually has. Are the collective efforts of the environmentally conscious anywhere near enough to counter the apathy of the vast millions of people that simply don't give a ****? I don't think we have enough time to convince more people.
> 
> I saw a convincing video (can't remember who it was!) by a man stating that historical precedent shows that we're naive to try to reverse our emissions. Instead, we have to adapt to our new circumstances. We have to plough all of our investment into technologies that can help offset the damage we're doing and will continue to do, rather than alternatives that we would have to convince people to use.


This is 100% accurate. Conservation will never work, it runs counter to what is both fundamentally human nature and correspondingly how the global economy even manages to exist. A combination of human ingenuity and stupidity got us into this mess, it will be human ingenuity and stupidity that gets us out of it: _geoengineering. _So enjoy your gasoline. Future smart people will fix things.


----------



## starthrower

Couchie said:


> Future smart people will fix things.


Of course that will mean finding a less hazardous energy source than fossil fuels to consume like there's no tomorrow. Unfortunately maximum profits are a much higher priority than research and development. I guess humanity will have to crash and burn, then pick up the pieces?


----------



## Couchie

starthrower said:


> Of course that will mean finding a less hazardous energy source than fossil fuels to consume like there's no tomorrow. Unfortunately maximum profits are a much higher priority than research and development. I guess humanity will have to crash and burn, then pick up the pieces?


Of course. **** hitting the fan has always been humanity's sole motivator for societal progress.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> Of course that will mean finding a less hazardous energy source than fossil fuels to consume like there's no tomorrow. Unfortunately maximum profits are a much higher priority than research and development. I guess humanity will have to crash and burn, then pick up the pieces?


Use as much oil as you possibly can! Buy it all! Burn it all! And eventually they'll have to find a replacement!


----------



## Vaneyes

Polednice said:


> Use as much oil as you possibly can! Buy it all! Burn it all! And eventually they'll have to find a replacement!


As long as we have wheels (no slang intended), we'll survive. A slower pace wouldn't be bad.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Couchie said:


> This is 100% accurate. Conservation will never work, it runs counter to what is both fundamentally human nature and correspondingly how the global economy even manages to exist. A combination of human ingenuity and stupidity got us into this mess, it will be human ingenuity and stupidity that gets us out of it: _geoengineering. _So enjoy your gasoline. Future smart people will fix things.


Einstein said: 


> You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.


----------



## Polednice

I don't necessarily disagree with you, emiellucifuge, but I imagine Einstein was speaking of physics problems to be solved by a small number. The standard approach to climate change requires an entire planet to see the world anew, and that's probably impossible.


----------



## Chrythes

According to this article - 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm
Clouds are getting lower, which helps to cool down the surface temperature and thus slow down the process of global warming. 
If we assume that global warming is a natural occurrence, why would the earth "battle" against it? 
I'm not implying anything, just trying to understand.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thomas Carlyle said:


> Every noble work is at first impossible.


Every argument can be countered through use of an appropriate _bon mot._


----------



## mmsbls

Chrythes said:


> If we assume that global warming is a natural occurrence, why would the earth "battle" against it?
> I'm not implying anything, just trying to understand.


The earth does not "battle" for or against Climate Change. There are processes which tend to suppress global warming such as increased absorption of CO2 in the ocean as its atmospheric concentration increases. There are also process which increase global warming. As the temperature rises, ice sheets melt, and less sunlight is reflected back into space rather than being absorbed. The former processes are known as negative feedback, and the latter processes are known as positive feedback. All complex systems have such feedback mechanisms with, in general, some being positive and others being negative.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Every argument can be countered through use of an appropriate _bon mot._


Which is precisely why un bon mot ne prouve rien.


----------



## science

I wonder whether anyone has studied whether "bon mots" are persuasive? I could imagine a selection bias: when the bon mot confirms your worldview, you take it as a concise statement of a good argument; when it contradicts your worldview, you take it as clever sophistry. I could also imagine that two or three "bon mots" will persuade far more people than a watertight logical argument.


----------



## emiellucifuge

There's a funny discussion of them in Tolstoy's War and Peace where the diplomat Bilibin (a minor character), is constantly using them and persuading everyone. He doesnt say much else, but once he springs his carefully crafted phrase upon his company he has become the highlight of the exchange.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> I wonder whether anyone has studied whether "bon mots" are persuasive? I could imagine a selection bias: when the bon mot confirms your worldview, you take it as a concise statement of a good argument; when it contradicts your worldview, you take it as clever sophistry. I could also imagine that two or three "bon mots" will persuade far more people than a watertight logical argument.


I haven't seen any studies myself, but I would be inclined to make the same hypothesis. Personally, I think "bon mots" are trickily deceptive because I don't think their primary allure is the content of their observation. I think they work rather like one-line jokes, in that they very often take an idea lots of people have but have left unspoken, and present it in an enticing new way that makes you go "Ooo!" This bears no relation to the veracity of the statement, it's just that the terse punch it packs makes you more inclined to believe its nonsense. I think the only difference between them and a joke is that jokes are funny and don't pretend to be insightful.


----------

